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.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan?

264 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan (384 ITR 200), spanning 2013 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 142(1), Section 144B, Section 148.

CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan (384 ITR 200)

Goldmohur Design and Apparel Park Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. Comm. of Income Tax - 7, Mumbai

ITA 3971/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodgoldmohar Design & Pr. Cit-7 R. No. 628, 6Th Floor, Apparel Park Ltd. 145, Goldmohar Mill, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Dada Saheb Phalke Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Dadar (E), Mumbai- 400 014 Pan – Aadcg1613M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri. T. Kipgen &

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…inferences in respect of issues which were neither raised in the SCN nor confronted to the assessee in the course of the revisional proceedings. On being confronted with the judgment of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Amitabh Bachchan (2016) 384 ITR 200 (SC), wherein the Hon‘ble Apex Court had observed that it is not mandatory on the part of a revisional authority to issue a ‗show cause‘ notice under Sec. 263 of the Act, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that the said judicial pronouncement in fact supported the case of the present assessee. In order to buttress his aforesaid claim the ld. A.R too…

Sri Ramesh Mysore Anantha Swamy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-13(1), Bangalore

In the result the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed

ITA 3175/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha R., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…of 6 revenue preferred an appeal in SLP in CC No.11485 of 2016 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court by its order dated 05.08.2016 dismissed the SLP preferred by the department. 10. As far as the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amitabh Bachchan 384 ITR 200 (SC) referred to by the learned CIT(A) in the impugned order is concerned, we are of the view that the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court were in the context of proceedings u/s.263 of the Act, which cannot be compared to or equated with penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)( c) of the Act. 11. We have already observed that the show cause notice i…

Niit Foundation, New Delhi vs. CIT(E), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4868/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyniit Foundation, Vs. Cit(E), Plot No. 8, Balaji Estate, New Delhi Sudarshan Munjal Marg, Kalkaji, New Delhi Pan: Aacan3951E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar , CAFor Respondent: Ms. Parmita M. Biswas, CIT DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263Section 80G

…that the assessee should have been put to the notice before any issue in order under section 263 of the income tax act has been passed by the learned CIT – E, he relied on the decision of the honourable Supreme Court of India in C IT Versus Amitabh Bachchan [384 ITR 200] wherein it has been specifically held that though there can be no dispute that while CIT is free to exercise his jurisdiction in consideration of all relevant facts, a full opportunity to contribute the same and to explain the circumstances surrounding such facts, as may be considered relevant by the assessee, must be afforded to assessee by the…

Shri Gurvinder Singh Suri, New Delhi vs. Pr CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2644/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2644/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Gurvinder Singh Suri, Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income C/O M/S Rra Taxindia, Tax (Central)-1, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaps8291D Assessee By : Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Sushma Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.05.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT DR

Section 119Section 263Section 263(1)Section 57

…ld be taken into consideration by Commissioner. Commissioner was justified in invoking section 263 on basis of valuation report submitted by DVO subsequent to assessment order. 6. Order of Hon’ble SUPREME COURT OF INDIA in the case of CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan 384 ITR 200 dated MAY 11, 2016 Section 263 does not require any specific show cause notice detailing specific grounds on which revision of assessment order is tentatively being proposed affecting initiation of exercise in absence thereof or to require commissioner to confine himself to terms of notice and foreclosing consideration of any other issue or ques…

Afcons Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT 9, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 3159/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3159/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) Afcons Infrastructure Limited Pr. Cit-9 16, Afcons House Room No.214, Aaykar Bhavan बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, M.K. Road Shah Industrial Estate Vs. Veera Desai Road, Andheri West Mumbai. Mumbai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaca-9067-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : S/Shri J.D. Mistry & Nitesh Joshi-Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Anadi Varma-Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 05/09/2019 & 19/12/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 17/03/2020 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: S/Shri J.D. Mistry & Nitesh Joshi-Ld. ArsFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma-Ld.CIT-DR

Section 263

…1 Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Assessment Year-2014-15 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ऐ” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी श""जीत दे,"ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमारअ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3159/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) Afcons Infrastructure Limited Pr. CIT-9 16, Afcons House Room No.214, Aaykar Bhavan बनाम/ 2nd Floor, M.K. Road Shah Industrial Estate Vs. Veera Desai Road, Andheri West Mumbai. Mumbai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAACA-9067-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respo…

Quippo Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA number 2191/del/2017 for assessment year 2010 – 11 is allowed

ITA 2191/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143Section 271(1)Section 36

…and defended the orders of the lower authorities. She submitted that the main intention of the notice under section 274 of the income tax act is to put assessee aware about the default. Referring to the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of 384 ITR 200 wherein considering the provisions of section 263 of the income tax act, it has been held that section 263 of the act only contemplates extending opportunity of hearing to the assessee. She therefore submitted that the provisions of section 274 by issuing the notice is only intended to make assessee aware about the default. She further submitted…

Quippo Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA number 2191/del/2017 for assessment year 2010 – 11 is allowed

ITA 2006/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143Section 271(1)Section 36

…and defended the orders of the lower authorities. She submitted that the main intention of the notice under section 274 of the income tax act is to put assessee aware about the default. Referring to the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of 384 ITR 200 wherein considering the provisions of section 263 of the income tax act, it has been held that section 263 of the act only contemplates extending opportunity of hearing to the assessee. She therefore submitted that the provisions of section 274 by issuing the notice is only intended to make assessee aware about the default. She further submitted…

Sleek International, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 32(3), Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 3327/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Mehta & Govind Jhaveri-For Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar - Ld.CIT-DR

Section 263

…1 M/s. Sleek International Assessment Year :2014-15 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “जी” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी सी. एन. "साद,"ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3327/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/s. Sleek International ACIT-32(3) 501, K.L. Mehrise, Gujar Lane Kautilya Bhavan बनाम/ 7th Floor, Room No.723 Off S.V. Road, Santacruz(W) Mumbai-400 054. G-Block BKC, Bandra Kurla Vs. Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400 051. "थायीले…