CIT v. Alagendran Finance Ltd.

293 ITR 1Supreme Court of India2007#797 most cited

What is CIT v. Alagendran Finance Ltd. authority for?

The limitation period for initiating revision proceedings under Section 263 concerning matters not subject to reassessment begins from the date of the original assessment order, not the reassessment order. The doctrine of merger does not apply to issues not examined during reassessment proceedings.

129

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Alagendran Finance Ltd. · Section 263 · Section 147 · Section 148 · doctrine of merger · revision limitation · original assessment order · reassessment order · unexamined issues

Also reported as

162 Taxmann 465

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 143(1)Section 40A(3)Section 142(1)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 263(2)section 86section 198section 147ofsection 92edoctrine of mergerrevision u/s 263section 263(1)related party transactionsection 115jb(2)lack of enquiryerroneous and prejudicial

Judgments citing CIT v. Alagendran Finance Ltd.

Sarda Mines Pvt. Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-05(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 867/KOL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 867/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd...............................………………………………………………Appellant 6Th Floor, Circular Court, 8, Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan : Aahcs 2419 R] D.C.I.T., Cir 5(2) Kolkata………………………………………………......................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 69 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Gupta, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Md. Usman, Cit Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 21, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Cit – 2, Kolkata Dated 28.03.2017 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: “1. For That The Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata (In Short ‘Cit’) Dated 28.03.2017 Is Without Jurisdiction & Illegal As None Of The Condition Precedent For Exercise Of The Power Under Section 263 Of The Act Exists And/Or Has Been Satisfied & As Such The Said Order Is Erroneous & Without Jurisdiction & Liable To Be Cancelled. 2. For That The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Was Not In Any Way Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & As Such The Cit Would Not Exercise Any Power Under Section 263 Of The Act. The Cit Erred In Holding That The Order Of Assessment Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue.

Section 263Section 35A

…ch was passed on 24.12.2009. 4. For that the CIT erred in holding that all the 3 grounds were considered in reassessment proceeding and erred in not following the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Alagendran Finance Ltd. reported in 293 ITR 1. The CIT should have held that no order under section 263 of the Act could not passed in respect of the 3 grounds mentioned hereinabove as the reassessment proceedings was not initiated for the said 3 grounds and they were not considered and discussed in the reassessment order. 5. For that the CIT erred in setting aside the order of assessment on t…

ACIT, Cir-27, Haldia, Purba Medinipur vs. Shri Prabal Kanti Pramanik, Purba Medinipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue, is dismissed

ITA 821/KOL/2015[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Oct 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.821/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 A.C.I.T, Circle – 27, Haldia Vs. Shri Prabal Kantipramanik Dubey House, Basudevpur, Garkamalpur, Mahishadal, Khanjanchak, Haldia, Dist: Purbamedinipur, W.B, Purbamedinipur – 721 602. 721628 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aeypp4276P (Revenue/Department) .. (Assessee) Revenue/Department By :Shri M. K. Biswas, Addl. Cit, Dr Assessee By :Shri T.P. Kaur, Fca सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/08/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue,Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-09, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata, In Appeal No.252/Cit(A)-7/C-27/14-15, Dated 13.03.2015, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 05.03.2014. 2. Before Us, The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri T.P. Kaur, FCAFor Respondent: Shri M. K. Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.821/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 A.C.I.T, Circle – 27, Haldia Vs. Shri Prabal KantiPramanik Dubey House, Basudevpur, Garkamalpur, Mahishadal, Khanjanchak, Haldia, Dist: PurbaMedinipur, W.B, PurbaMedinipur – 721 602. 721628 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AEYPP4276P (Revenue/Department) .. (Assessee) Revenue/Department by :Shri M. K. Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR Assessee by :Shri T.P. Kaur, FCA सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date of Hearing : 17/08/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of Pronouncement :…

Aarti Indusries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 15, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3048/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood: A.Y : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 3Section 80I

…essment was made on 30.9.2016 (supra) after adding the aforesaid amount to the income already assessed vide order dated 14.1.2013 (supra). The learned representative relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Alagendran Finance Ltd., 293 ITR 1 (SC) to point out that in this view of the matter, so far as the issue of claim of deduction u/s 80IA is concerned, the period of limitation prescribed in Sec. 263(2) of the Act commences from the date of the original assessment order dated 14.1.2013 (supra) and not from the reassessment order dated 30.9.2016 (supra) as the reassessment had nothing…

ACIT, Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Neelachal Gramya Bank, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection

ITA 58/CTK/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mohapatra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 22Section 36Section 44ASection 80PSection 80P(4)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.58 /CTK/2015 Assessment Year:2008-09 ACIT, Circle -2(1), Vs. M/s. Neelachal Gramya Bhubaneswar Bank, 190/702, Kokila Residency, Ananta Vihar, Airport Area Post Office, Pokhariput, Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No. AAALN 0450 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) C.O.No.13/ctk/2015 (arising out of ITA No.58/CTK/2015) Assessment Year:2008-09 M/s. Neelachal Gramya Vs. ACIT, Circle -2(1), Bank, 190/702, Kokila Bhubaneswar Residency, Ananta Vihar, Airport Area Post Office, Pokharipu…

M/S. Ramco Industries Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Madurai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 2880/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2880/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Ramco Industries Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of 47, P.S.K.Nagar, V. Income-Tax, Rajapalayam. Corporate Circle-2, Pan Aaacr5284J Madurai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V. Jagadisan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri U. Anjanayalu, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(2)Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 2880/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/s. Ramco Industries Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner of 47, P.S.K.Nagar, v. Income-tax, Rajapalayam. Corporate Circle-2, PAN AAACR5284J Madurai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर /Appellant by : Shri V. Jagadisan, FCA ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri U. Anjan…

Bmel Infra India Ltd., Kolkata vs. CIT-3, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 385/KOL/2015[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 385/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Bmel Infra India Ltd. -Vs.- C.I.T.-3, Kolkata Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaccb 6325 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Vigyaneshwar Nath Datta, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Bani Brata Dutta, Addl. Cit.Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.04.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 03.05.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.03.2015 Of C.I.T.(A)-Kolkata-3, Kolkata Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act).

For Appellant: Shri Vigyaneshwar Nath Datta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bani Brata Dutta, Addl. CIT.Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 144Section 263Section 68

…9. The ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as were made before CIT in reply to the show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act. He further placed reliance to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Alagendran Finance Ltd. 293 ITR 1(SC). In the aforesaid decision the assessment of the assessee for A.Y.s.1994-95 to 1996-97 was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act and in such assessments the assessee claimed for deduction on account of Lease Equalisation Fund was accepted by the AO. Thereafter proceedings u/s 148 of the Act was initiated in respect to some other item of income not re…

DCIT 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Godrej Industries, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 4339/MUM/2015[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Godrej Industries Circle 14(1)(2) Pirojsha Nagar Eastern Vs. 470 Aayakar Bhavan, 4 Th Floor, Express High Way Vikhroli M.K. Marg, Mumbai-20 (E), Mumbai-400 070 .. Appellant Respondent Pan No. Aaecg2953R Revenue By .. Miss Vidisha Kalra, Cit Dr Shri Jitendra Jain, Ar Assessee By .. Date Of Hearing .. 23-03-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 07-04-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 44ASection 80H

…ITR 639 (SC) and also relied on the Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Tony Electronics Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 378 (Del). She also tried to distinguish the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd. (2007) 293 ITR 1 (SC) by stating that the issue before Supreme Court was the interpretation of provisions of section 263 and in section 154 of the Act, according to her, the period of limitation was decided for action under section 263 of the Act with reference to the date of original assessment order and in the subsequent reassessment order wherein lease equalizat…

Commissioner of Income Tax: Delhi -I vs. Bharti Airtel Limited

ITA/294/2013HC Delhi19 Jul 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 194HSection 194JSection 263Section 263(2)Section 40

…SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL): This appeal by the Revenue, which pertains to Assessment Year 2005-06, has to be dismissed in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax versus Alagendran Finance Limited, (2007) 293 ITR 1 (SC). 2. Relevant facts in brief may be noticed. Return filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2005-06 was taken up for scrutiny and income was assessed at Rs.860,18,30,950/- vide assessment order dated 31st December, 2007 after the setting off of brought forward loses and unabsorbed depreciation amounting to Rs.1941,17,35,146/-. ITA N…

Commissioner of Income Tax: Delhi -I vs. Bharti Airtel Limited

ITA - 294 / 2013HC Delhi19 Jul 2013
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 194HSection 194JSection 263Section 263(2)Section 40

…SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL): This appeal by the Revenue, which pertains to Assessment Year 2005-06, has to be dismissed in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax versus Alagendran Finance Limited, (2007) 293 ITR 1 (SC). 2. Relevant facts in brief may be noticed. Return filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2005-06 was taken up for scrutiny and income was assessed at Rs.860,18,30,950/- vide assessment order dated 31st December, 2007 after the setting off of brought forward loses and unabsorbed depreciation amounting to Rs.1941,17,35,146/-. 2013:DH…