CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan

384 ITR 200Supreme Court of India2016#317 most cited

What is CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan authority for?

The Commissioner's revisional power under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act is not limited to the points specified in the show-cause notice, nor is the exercise of this power contingent upon issuing a show-cause notice.

259

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan · Amitabh Bachchan SC 2016 · Section 263 Income Tax Act · PCIT revisional power · scope of show cause notice u/s 263 · Commissioner not confined to SCN terms · power not contingent on show-cause notice · assessment erroneous and prejudicial · inadequate enquiry revision · Malabar Industrial · 384 ITR 200 · Revision under Section 263

Also reported as

69 Taxmann.com 170286 CTR 113

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 143(3)Section 147Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 148Section 143(2)Section 151

Issues it is cited on

lack of enquiryprejudicial to interest of revenueinadequate enquirysection 263(1)malabar industrialrevision under section 263revision u/s 263assessment order erroneouserroneous and prejudicialnon application of mindsection 263section 26

Judgments citing CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan

JILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK MYDT,SEHORE, MP vs. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 407/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2014-15 Jila Sahakari Kendriya Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi / Bank Mydt, Acit-3(1), Bhopal बनाम/ Sehore, M.P. Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaalj0022F Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2026

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…ovision for standard assets which is basically in the nature of bad & doubtful debts. 6.2 Before we discuss the case further, we will like to mentions the relevant case laws on this issue. 6.3 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Amitabh Bachchan, 384 ITR 200(SC) observed as under: "21. There can be no doubt that so long as the view taken by the Assessing Officer is a possible view the same ought not to be interfered with by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act merely on the ground that there is another possible view of the matter Permitting exercise of revisional power in a situation where t…

M/S SOVA,PANAJI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

ITA 24/PAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji10 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2018-19 M/S Sova Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan: Aacfs8862Q . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent

For Appellant: Mr Sukhsagar Syal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253(1)Section 263Section 56

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, GOA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/s Sova Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Panaji, Goa-403001. PAN: AACFS8862Q . . . . . . . Appellant V/s Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee by: Mr Sukhsagar Syal [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’] Date of conclusive Hearing : 05/03/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 10/03/2026 ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI; This appeal is filed u/s 253(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act…

STARSHINE LAND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI-5, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2148/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 148Section 23(5)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 Starshine Land Developers Vs. Principal Commissioner of Private Limited Income Tax, Mumbai-5 Room No-515, 5th Floor, 77/78 Nilkamal House, Road No.13/14, M.I.D.C., Aayakar Bhavan, MK Road, Andheri(East), Mumbai-400093 Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020 PAN: [AAKCS7310Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Vipul Joshi & Ms. Dinkle Hariya Respondent by Shri Arun Kanti Dutta – CIT DR Date of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 27.02.2026 ORDER Per:…

SH. RANDHIR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 494/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…d 18.12.2019 Aakash Ganga Promoters & Developers vs. ACIT (Page 621-631 of JPB) 16 OTHER PROPOSITIONS: PROPOSITION I: THAT PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 CANNOT BE INITIATED FOR INADEQUATE ENQUIRY BUT ONLY FOR LACK OF ENQUIRY WHICH IS DISTINCT FROM INADEQUATE ENQUIRY i) 384 ITR 200 (SC) CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan. ii) 357 ITR 388 (Del) DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation iii) 332 ITR 167 (Del) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. iv) 343 ITR 329 (Del) ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. at pages 339 v) 341 ITR 166 (Del) CIT vs. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. vi) 212 Taxman 184 (Del) CIT vs. Vodafone Essar South Ltd. vii) 341 ITR 180 (Del) CIT vs. Hindus…

SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 488/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…d 18.12.2019 Aakash Ganga Promoters & Developers vs. ACIT (Page 621-631 of JPB) 16 OTHER PROPOSITIONS: PROPOSITION I: THAT PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 CANNOT BE INITIATED FOR INADEQUATE ENQUIRY BUT ONLY FOR LACK OF ENQUIRY WHICH IS DISTINCT FROM INADEQUATE ENQUIRY i) 384 ITR 200 (SC) CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan. ii) 357 ITR 388 (Del) DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation iii) 332 ITR 167 (Del) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. iv) 343 ITR 329 (Del) ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. at pages 339 v) 341 ITR 166 (Del) CIT vs. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. vi) 212 Taxman 184 (Del) CIT vs. Vodafone Essar South Ltd. vii) 341 ITR 180 (Del) CIT vs. Hindus…

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 290/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…d 18.12.2019 Aakash Ganga Promoters & Developers vs. ACIT (Page 621-631 of JPB) 16 OTHER PROPOSITIONS: PROPOSITION I: THAT PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 CANNOT BE INITIATED FOR INADEQUATE ENQUIRY BUT ONLY FOR LACK OF ENQUIRY WHICH IS DISTINCT FROM INADEQUATE ENQUIRY i) 384 ITR 200 (SC) CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan. ii) 357 ITR 388 (Del) DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation iii) 332 ITR 167 (Del) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. iv) 343 ITR 329 (Del) ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. at pages 339 v) 341 ITR 166 (Del) CIT vs. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. vi) 212 Taxman 184 (Del) CIT vs. Vodafone Essar South Ltd. vii) 341 ITR 180 (Del) CIT vs. Hindus…

DHUNI CHAND HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 289/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…d 18.12.2019 Aakash Ganga Promoters & Developers vs. ACIT (Page 621-631 of JPB) 16 OTHER PROPOSITIONS: PROPOSITION I: THAT PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 CANNOT BE INITIATED FOR INADEQUATE ENQUIRY BUT ONLY FOR LACK OF ENQUIRY WHICH IS DISTINCT FROM INADEQUATE ENQUIRY i) 384 ITR 200 (SC) CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan. ii) 357 ITR 388 (Del) DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation iii) 332 ITR 167 (Del) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. iv) 343 ITR 329 (Del) ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. at pages 339 v) 341 ITR 166 (Del) CIT vs. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. vi) 212 Taxman 184 (Del) CIT vs. Vodafone Essar South Ltd. vii) 341 ITR 180 (Del) CIT vs. Hindus…

SH. KASHMIR SINGH SANDHA,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 288/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…d 18.12.2019 Aakash Ganga Promoters & Developers vs. ACIT (Page 621-631 of JPB) 16 OTHER PROPOSITIONS: PROPOSITION I: THAT PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 CANNOT BE INITIATED FOR INADEQUATE ENQUIRY BUT ONLY FOR LACK OF ENQUIRY WHICH IS DISTINCT FROM INADEQUATE ENQUIRY i) 384 ITR 200 (SC) CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan. ii) 357 ITR 388 (Del) DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation iii) 332 ITR 167 (Del) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. iv) 343 ITR 329 (Del) ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. at pages 339 v) 341 ITR 166 (Del) CIT vs. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. vi) 212 Taxman 184 (Del) CIT vs. Vodafone Essar South Ltd. vii) 341 ITR 180 (Del) CIT vs. Hindus…

M/S GANESH DASS HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 287/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…d 18.12.2019 Aakash Ganga Promoters & Developers vs. ACIT (Page 621-631 of JPB) 16 OTHER PROPOSITIONS: PROPOSITION I: THAT PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 CANNOT BE INITIATED FOR INADEQUATE ENQUIRY BUT ONLY FOR LACK OF ENQUIRY WHICH IS DISTINCT FROM INADEQUATE ENQUIRY i) 384 ITR 200 (SC) CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan. ii) 357 ITR 388 (Del) DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation iii) 332 ITR 167 (Del) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. iv) 343 ITR 329 (Del) ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. at pages 339 v) 341 ITR 166 (Del) CIT vs. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. vi) 212 Taxman 184 (Del) CIT vs. Vodafone Essar South Ltd. vii) 341 ITR 180 (Del) CIT vs. Hindus…

SH. ARVAIL SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 286/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…d 18.12.2019 Aakash Ganga Promoters & Developers vs. ACIT (Page 621-631 of JPB) 16 OTHER PROPOSITIONS: PROPOSITION I: THAT PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 CANNOT BE INITIATED FOR INADEQUATE ENQUIRY BUT ONLY FOR LACK OF ENQUIRY WHICH IS DISTINCT FROM INADEQUATE ENQUIRY i) 384 ITR 200 (SC) CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan. ii) 357 ITR 388 (Del) DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation iii) 332 ITR 167 (Del) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. iv) 343 ITR 329 (Del) ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. at pages 339 v) 341 ITR 166 (Del) CIT vs. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. vi) 212 Taxman 184 (Del) CIT vs. Vodafone Essar South Ltd. vii) 341 ITR 180 (Del) CIT vs. Hindus…

BAJAJ FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 565/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2019-20 Bajaj Finance Limited Pcit-3, Pune 3Rd Floor, Panchshil Tech Park, Vs. Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aabcb1518L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 06-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-01-2026

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 41Section 80J

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2019-20 Bajaj Finance Limited PCIT-3, Pune 3rd Floor, Panchshil Tech Park, Vs. Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 PAN: AABCB1518L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Department by : Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 06-01-2026 Date of pronouncement : 29-01-2026 O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, V.P: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.01.2024 passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter r…

BSCPL AURANG TOLLWAY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 612/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay, wherein it was submitted that the appeal for the relevant assessment year was required to be filed within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, the

Section 143(3)Section 263

…hout application of mind or without proper inquiry is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue for the purpose of Section 263 of the Act. A similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan (2016) 384 ITR 200, wherein it has been clearly held 25 BSCPL Aurang Tollway Limited that, the failure of the A.O. to conduct inquiries which are necessary in the facts of the case justifies the revision order under Section 263 of the Act. 17. In the present case, the Ld. PCIT invoked jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act, and set aside the assessment order…

BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 2666/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

For Appellant: Mr. P.J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 145(2)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 40

…hat the assessee was deprived of an effective opportunity of being heard on this issue. 5.3 In this connection, the Ld. counsel for the assessee further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan (2016) 384 ITR 200 (SC) to contend that the Commissioner can exercise revisional jurisdiction only after affording the assessee an opportunity to contest the specific grounds on which such jurisdiction is sought to be exercised. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in Colorcraft Kashimira Ceramic Compound (105 ITD 599) for th…

PROPERTY PLUS REALTORS,DELHI vs. PR, CIT CENTRAL DELHI 2, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3406/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 263

…d month violates the principle of the audi alteram partem. 44. Further a non-speaking order that ignores material submission/ evidence is per se invalid. 45. That in this regard the reliance is place on the following cases, (a) CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan (2016) 384 ITR 200 (SC), where it was held that hearing is mandatory. (b) R.N. Khemka Enterprises vs. ITAT (ITAT Delhi, 2023) where it was held that undue haste vitiates order u/s 263. (c) Hi-Shine Inks Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Surat, 2023), where it was held that order without considering reply/hearing is unsustainable. Conclusion basis Ground 6 The impugned order is there…

SHRI MULTANCHAND BORA TRUST,PUNE vs. ACIT, EXEMPTION, CIRCLE- AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1312/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1312/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Shri Multanchand Bora Trust, V The Assistant/Deputy 132B/2A, Ganeshkhind Road, S. Commissioner Of Income Pune – 411007. Tax, Exemption Circle, Aurangabad. Pan: Aafts3329F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Shrenik Gandhi Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde –Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune At Nashik Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21, Dated 30.03.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 20.09.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Ground No. 1: The Learned Cit (Exemption) Seriously Erred On The Facts & Law, In Exercising The Revisionary Powers Under Section

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

…tted that as per the provisions of the Act, the amount has been used in the sixth year. Ld.AR therefore submitted that the order u/s.263 is bad in law. 4.1 Ld.AR relied on following case laws : i. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai vs.Amitabh Bachchan [2016] 384 ITR 200(SC) ii. Commissioner of Income-tax, Shimla Vs. Greenworld Corporation [2009] 314 ITR 81 (SC) iii. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Future Corporate Resources Ltd. [2022] 284 Taxman 122 (Bombay) iv. Bajaj Housing Finance Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 161 taxmann.com 213(Pune Tribunal) Submission of ld.DR : 5. Ld.Departmental R…

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, AGRA

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

ITA 303/AGR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhhma Agro Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Opp. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002. (Pan :Aacch0450J)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 40ASection 68

…017 (Chd-Trib.) vide order, dated 04.12.2019, in which, in para 17 of the judgment, it has been held as under:- “17. The ld. CIT made reference to the Explanation-2 to Section 263 and also decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Amitabhachan, 384 ITR 200. It is pertinent to note that Explanation-2 of section 263(1) would help the ld. Commissioner to take cognizance under section 263 of the Act, if no inquiry was conducted by the AO before finalizing the assessment order. No doubt the assessment orders are very brief, and did not have elaborate discussion on these issues, but it is pertinent to be…

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, AGRA

ITA 302/AGR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2022-23
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 40ASection 68

…017 (Chd-Trib.) vide order, dated 04.12.2019, in which, in para 17 of the judgment, it has been held as under:- “17. The ld. CIT made reference to the Explanation-2 to Section 263 and also decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Amitabhachan, 384 ITR 200. It is pertinent to note that Explanation-2 of section 263(1) would help the ld. Commissioner to take cognizance under section 263 of the Act, if no inquiry was conducted by the AO before finalizing the assessment order. No doubt the assessment orders are very brief, and did not have elaborate discussion on these issues, but it is pertinent to be…

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, AGRA

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

ITA 301/AGR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhhma Agro Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Opp. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002. (Pan :Aacch0450J)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 40ASection 68

…017 (Chd-Trib.) vide order, dated 04.12.2019, in which, in para 17 of the judgment, it has been held as under:- “17. The ld. CIT made reference to the Explanation-2 to Section 263 and also decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Amitabhachan, 384 ITR 200. It is pertinent to note that Explanation-2 of section 263(1) would help the ld. Commissioner to take cognizance under section 263 of the Act, if no inquiry was conducted by the AO before finalizing the assessment order. No doubt the assessment orders are very brief, and did not have elaborate discussion on these issues, but it is pertinent to be…

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED, AGRA

ITA 300/AGR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 40ASection 68

…017 (Chd-Trib.) vide order, dated 04.12.2019, in which, in para 17 of the judgment, it has been held as under:- “17. The ld. CIT made reference to the Explanation-2 to Section 263 and also decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Amitabhachan, 384 ITR 200. It is pertinent to note that Explanation-2 of section 263(1) would help the ld. Commissioner to take cognizance under section 263 of the Act, if no inquiry was conducted by the AO before finalizing the assessment order. No doubt the assessment orders are very brief, and did not have elaborate discussion on these issues, but it is pertinent to be…

HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,AGRA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

ITA 251/AGR/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhhma Agro Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Opp. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002. (Pan :Aacch0450J)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 40ASection 68

…017 (Chd-Trib.) vide order, dated 04.12.2019, in which, in para 17 of the judgment, it has been held as under:- “17. The ld. CIT made reference to the Explanation-2 to Section 263 and also decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Amitabhachan, 384 ITR 200. It is pertinent to note that Explanation-2 of section 263(1) would help the ld. Commissioner to take cognizance under section 263 of the Act, if no inquiry was conducted by the AO before finalizing the assessment order. No doubt the assessment orders are very brief, and did not have elaborate discussion on these issues, but it is pertinent to be…

Showing 1–20 of 259 · Page 1 of 13

...