What is CIT v. Amalgamations Ltd. authority for?

An assessment order can be deemed erroneous due to the Assessing Officer's non-application of mind or inadequate inquiry, warranting revision under Section 263. However, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax must establish the order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, and cannot use this power merely to direct further inquiries without such a finding.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Amalgamations Ltd.?

73 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Amalgamations Ltd. (238 ITR 963), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Amalgamations Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 144B, Section 14A.

CIT v. Amalgamations Ltd. (238 ITR 963)

Impact Foundation (India), Mumbai vs. The Comm of Income Tax (Exemp), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 931/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.931/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18) Impact Foundation (India) बिधम/ Cit (E), Mumbai F1, 1St Floor, Laxmi Room No. 601, 6Th Floor, Vs. Wooden Mills, Opp G5A, Mtnl Building, Pedder Shakti Mills Lane, Off, Dr. Road, Dr. Gopalrao E. Moses Road, Mahalaxmi Deshmukh Marg, (W), Mumbai-400011. Cumballa Hill, Mumbai- 400026. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaat1422J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Shri Purushottam Tripuri (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit (Exemptions), Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Dated 24.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee Is Challenging The Validity Of Invocation Of Jurisdiction By Ld Cit(E) U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripuri (Sr. AR)

Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

…ITA No.931/Mum/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 Impact Foundation (India) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.931/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18) Impact Foundation (India) बिधम/ CIT (E), Mumbai F1, 1st Floor, Laxmi Room No. 601, 6th Floor, Vs. Wooden Mills, Opp G5A, MTNL Building, Pedder Shakti Mills Lane, Off, Dr. Road, Dr. Gopalrao E. Moses Road, Mahalaxmi Deshmukh Marg, (W), Mumbai-400011. Cumballa Hill, Mumbai- 400026. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAAT1422J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर…

Pioneer Insurance & Reinsurance Brokers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax - 3, Mumbai and Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax – 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 935/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Aby T Varkey (Jm)

Section 131Section 133ASection 263

…er of Income tax has not examined and decided whether or not the order is erroneous but has directed the Assessing Officer to decide the aspect/question….” Similar view has been expressed by Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Amalgamations Ltd (238 ITR 963). 20. The law interpreted by the Hon’ble High Courts, in the above said cases, would make it clear that the Ld Pr. CIT, before holding an order to be erroneous, should have conducted necessary enquiries or verification in order to show that the finding given by the assessing officer is erroneous and the Ld Pr. CIT should have shown that the view…

Pioneer Investcorp Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax - 3, Mumbai and Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax – 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 934/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Aby T Varkey (Jm)

Section 131Section 133ASection 263

…er of Income tax has not examined and decided whether or not the order is erroneous but has directed the Assessing Officer to decide the aspect/question….” Similar view has been expressed by Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Amalgamations Ltd (238 ITR 963). 20. The law interpreted by the Hon’ble High Courts, in the above said cases, would make it clear that the Ld Pr. CIT, before holding an order to be erroneous, should have conducted necessary enquiries or verification in order to show that the finding given by the assessing officer is erroneous and the Ld Pr. CIT should have shown that the view…

Pioneer Investcorp Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax - 3, Mumbai and Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax – 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 933/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Aby T Varkey (Jm)

Section 131Section 133ASection 263

…er of Income tax has not examined and decided whether or not the order is erroneous but has directed the Assessing Officer to decide the aspect/question….” Similar view has been expressed by Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Amalgamations Ltd (238 ITR 963). 20. The law interpreted by the Hon’ble High Courts, in the above said cases, would make it clear that the Ld Pr. CIT, before holding an order to be erroneous, should have conducted necessary enquiries or verification in order to show that the finding given by the assessing officer is erroneous and the Ld Pr. CIT should have shown that the view…

Mukesh Kumar Saraogi, Churu vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 186/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Shivangi Samdhani, CA &For Respondent: Sh. P. R. Meena (CIT)

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…7 ITR 698 (Raj) 5. Paul Mathews & Sons v CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) 6. CIT v Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) 7. CIT v Hastings Properties (2002) 253 ITR 124 (Cal) 8. CIT v Goal (JP) (HUF) (2001) 247 ITR 555 (Cal) 9. CIT v Amalgamations Ltd. (1999) 238 ITR 963 (Mad) 10. CIT v MacneillMagore Ltd. (1998) 232 ITR 945 (Cal) 1. Without prejudice to aboveand without agreeing it is submitted that if the provisions of section 115BBE are made applicable then also rate of 60% cannot be applied because of the following reasoning: 1. The provisions of Section 115BBE were inserted in the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Fi…

Bbr Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 113/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S.Bbr Projects Private Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward – 1(14), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaccb7153J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy –

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 37Section 40

…ner of Income tax has not examined and decided whether or not the order is erroneous but has directed the Assessing Officer to decide the aspect/question….” Similar view has been expressed by Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Amalgamations Ltd (238 ITR 963). The law interpreted by the High Courts makes it clear that the Ld Pr. CIT, before holding an order to be erroneous, should conduct minimum enquiries or verification in order to show that the finding given by the assessing officer is erroneous. 17. On the basis of above discussed legal propositions on the revisional power of ld.CIT(A), we are r…

Ashokkumar Bhanwarlal Chhajer, Sanpada vs. Pr. CIT - (Central), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1361/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…ner of Income tax has not examined and decided whether or not the order is erroneous but has directed the Assessing Officer to decide the aspect/question….” Similar view has been expressed by Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Amalgamations Ltd (238 ITR 963). 10. The law interpreted by the High Courts would make it clear that the Ld Pr. CIT, before holding an order to be erroneous, should conduct necessary enquiries or verification in order to show that the finding given by the assessing officer is erroneous or the Ld Pr. CIT should show that the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law. 11. I…

Shri Kalyan Buildmart Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur

ITA 126/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. Prathviraj Meena (CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 6(3)(ii)

…98 (Raj) v. Paul Mathews & Sons v CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) vi. CIT v Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) vii. CIT v Hastings Properties (2002) 253 ITR 124 (Cal) viii. CIT v Goal (JP) (HUF) (2001) 247 ITR 555 (Cal) ix. CIT v Amalgamations Ltd. (1999) 238 ITR 963 (Mad) x. CIT v Macneill Magore Ltd. (1998) 232 ITR 945 (Cal) 14. Where the Assessing Officer has exercised the quasi-judicial power vested in him in accordance with law and arrived at a conclusion and such a conclusion cannot be considered erroneous simply because the Commissioner does not feel satisfied with the conclusion. 15. Provision of sect…

Mayur Khara, Yavatmal vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Nagpur

In the result, Both the appeals of above mentioned assessee’s are allowed

ITA 64/NAG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Mayur Khara Vs. The Pcit Datta Chowk Nagpur-2 Yavatmalm 445 001 (Maharastra) Pan No.:Abwpk 8869 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Amit Khara Vs. The Pcit Datta Chowk Nagpur-2 Yavatmalm 445 001 (Maharastra) Pan No.:Abwpk 8868 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Atal, Ca Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Above Mentioned Assessees Against Two Different Orders Passed U/S 263 Of The Act By The Ld. Pr.Cit, Nagpur- 2 Dated 17-02-2017 & 16-02-20217 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Respectively. The Grounds Of Raised By The Above Mentioned Assessees Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Atal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ner of Income-tax has not examined and decided whether or not the order is erroneous but has directed the Assessing Officer to decide the aspect/question…." Similar view has been expressed by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Amalgamations Ltd. (238 ITR 963) The law interpreted by the Hon'ble courts makes it clear that Ld. PCIT before holding the order of the Ld. A.O as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the 30 31 Shri Mayur Khara vs Pr. CIT-2, Nagpur interest of revenue should have to conduct necessary enquiries or verification in order to show that the findings given by Ld. A.O is unsustaina…