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 200Supreme Court of India2016#311 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.

264

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 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 263 Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 142(1)Section 144B Section 148 Section 143(2)Section 151

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

lack of enquiry prejudicial to interest of revenue inadequate enquiry section 263(1)malabar industrial revision under section 263 revision u/s 263 assessment order erroneous erroneous and prejudicial non application of mind section 263 section 26

Judgments citing CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan

Purshottam S.Panchal, Valsad vs. Pr.CIT, Valsad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 242/SRT/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.242/Srt/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Purshottam S. Panchal, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Raw House-5, Rameshwar Park, Income Tax, Valsad Parnera Pardi, Atul-Valsad Road, Valsad-396001 [Pan: Annpp 8604 K] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44ASection 68

…Purshottam S. Panchal v. Pr. CIT, Valsad /ITA No.242/SRT/2019 /A.Y. 2009-10 Page 1 of 14 आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,सुरत"ायपीठ,सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.242/SRT/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Purshottam S. Panchal, Vs. Principal Commissioner of Raw House-5, Rameshwar Park, Income Tax, Valsad Parnera Pardi, Atul-Valsad Road, Valsad-396001 [PAN: ANNPP 8604 K] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रतीकीओरसे /Assessee by Shri S.D. Chhada – AR Shri Srinivas T. Bidari – CIT(DR) राज"क…

M/S. Karnataka Forest Development Corporation Limited, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-4, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by assessee allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 168/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT,DR

Section 143Section 263

…ITA No.168(B)/2019 1 sIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES : “B”, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.168(Bang)/2019 (Assessment Year : 2014-15) M/s Karnataka Forest Development 1 Floor, Vana Vikas, 18th Cross, Malleshwaram, Bangalore-560 003 Pan No.AAACK9424B Appellant Vs The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax, 5th Floor, BMTC Building, Koramangala, Bangalore Respondent Appellant by : Shri B.S.Balachandran, Advocate Revenue by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT,DR Date of hearing : 25-11-2019 Date of pronouncement : 29-11-2019 O R D E R…

International Cargo Terminals & Rail Infrastructure Private Limited (Formerly Known As Boxtrans Logistrics (India) Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-1, Mumbai

ITA 1637/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1637/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, AR byFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson, DR

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1637/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) DCIT -1(1)(1), M/s International Cargo Terminals Room No. 533, & Rail Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, (formerly known as Boxtrans M.K. Road, बिधम/ Logistics (I) Services Pvt. Ltd.) Mumbai-400 020 Godrej Coliseum, Office No. 801, Vs. C-wing, Behind Everard Nagar, Off Somaiya Hospital Road, Sion (east), Mumbai – 400 022 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AACCB8054G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / : Respondent) अपीलाथीकी…

Sai Enterprises, Thane vs. Pr. CIT- 2, Thane

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 3075/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3075/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sai Enterprises Pr. Cit-2 2Nd Floor, Rosa Vista Ashar I.T. Pak, “B” Wing बनाम/ 6Th Floor, Wagle Indl. Estate Opp. Suraj Water Park Vs. Ghodbunder Road, Thane(W) Thane(E), Maharashtra. Maharashtra. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaefs-0841-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh - Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 20/08/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 15/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1.1 As Per The Provisions Of Section 263 Of Income Tax Act, 1961, The Revenue Authorities Namely Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax / Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Vested With The Supervisory Powers Of Suo-Moto Revision Of Any Order Passed By The Assessing Officer [Ao]. For The Said Purpose, The Appropriate Authority May Call For & Examine

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh - Ld.Sr.DR

Section 263

…1 Sai Enterprises आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “जी” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। Assessment Year :2014-15 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 आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3075/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sai Enterprises Pr. CIT-2 2nd Floor, Rosa Vista Ashar I.T. Pak, “B” Wing बनाम/ 6th Floor, Wagle Indl. Estate Opp. Suraj Water Park Vs. Ghodbunder Road, Thane(W) Thane(E), Maharashtra. Maharashtra. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAEFS-…

Blue Star Ltd., Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1941/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri N.S. Jangpangi – Ld. DR

Section 263

…1 Blue Star Ltd Assessment Year :2013-14 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1941/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14 Blue Star Ltd. Pr.CIT-1, 3r d Floor, Room No. 387, Kasturi Building बनाम/ Aaykar Bhavan Mohan T. Advani Chowk Vs. M.K Road, Jamshedji Tata Road Mumbai. Mumbai – 400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAACB-4487-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"…

M/S. Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd.(Hudco), New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1162/DEL/2011[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

…as deleted for want of application of mind by the tax officer. Revenue's appeal against this HKHC judgment before the Supreme Court came to be summarily rejected. 3. In this context it is observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amitabh Bachchan 384 ITR 200, while considering the provisions of Section 263 of the Act, have very recently, held that the issuance of show cause notice under provisions of Section 263 of the Act is not mandatory, as the said Section does not mandate issuing show cause notice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Section 263 of the Act only contemplates extending opp…

M/S. Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd.(Hudco), New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1161/DEL/2011[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

M/S. Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd.(Hudco), New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1160/DEL/2011[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5234/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41

Virandra Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. CIT, International Texation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2055/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri V.P. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sulekha Verma, Sr.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263

…SC) 3. Rajmandir Estates (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT (2016) 386 ITR 162 (Calcutta) 4. Rajmandir Estates (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT (2017) 77 taxmann.com 285 (SC) 5. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works vs. CIT (1998) 231 ITR 53 (SC) 6. CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan 384 ITR 200 dated May 11, 2016 (SC) 7. PTC Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, ITA No.2860/Del/2010 dated 03.04.2018 (Tribunal) 8. CIT vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd., 341 ITR 293 (Kar.) 9. Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT, 99 ITR 375 (Del.) 10. Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.3046/Del/2016 for A.Y. 2009-10 order dated 11.01.2019 (Delhi.) 11. Ramesh K…

Techno Tracom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. CIT-3, Kolkata

ITA 1518/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Oct 2019AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) I.T.A. No. 1518/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Techno Tracom Private Limited.........………………………………………………………………………..Appellant Kamalalaya Centre 156A, Lenin Sarani 4Th Floor Room No. 417 Kolkata – 700 013 [Pan : Aacct 9559 J] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(3), Kolkata…………...............................……..………....………...Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vikash Surana, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Dr. P.K. Srihari, Cit, Sr. D/R Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 5Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 1St , 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 143(3)Section 263

…had mentioned in its return of income. He submitted that the Hon’ble Suprem in its return of income. He submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of e Court in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan reported in vs. Amitabh Bachchan reported in [2016] 384 ITR 200 (SC) held that Section 263 of the held that Section 263 of the Act, does not contemplate the issue of show cause notice and all that the Section Act, does not contemplate the issue of show cause notice and all that the Section Act, does not contemplate the issue of show cause notice and all that the Section requires is, granting of an opportunity…

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

ITA 2495/MUM/2009[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodtata Chemicals Limited Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 Bombay House, 24, 384, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Homi Mody, Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 001 Pan – Aaact4059M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Atul Suraiya, A.Rs Respondent By: Shri R. Manjunatha Swami, Cit D.R Date Of Hearing: 18.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2019

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swami, CIT D.R

Section 154Section 244ASection 244A(2)Section 263

…be eligible for interest on the said period of delay. The ld. D.R in support of his contention that the CIT had acted well within the scope of his jurisdiction, relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Amitabh Bachchan (2016) 384 ITR 200 (SC).It was thus submitted by the ld. D.R, that as the appeal of the assessee was devoid of any merit, therefore, it was liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard the authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as the judicial pronouncements relied upon…

Smt. Shardaben B. Patel, Ahmedabad vs. Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-5, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1026/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R

Section 143(3)Section 263

…urtailing the statutory discretion of the AO. Such act of the PCIT is not in consonance with authoritative judicial pronouncement made in this regard. A reference was made to yet another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan (2016) 384 ITR 200 (SC) to contend that opportunity to the assessee to be heard on all issues is mandatory and conclusions drawn adverse to the assessee in the order of revision on issues not mentioned in the notice is impermissible. It was contended that the satisfaction to exercise jurisdiction under s.263 of the Act is available subject to the strict observance…

Rajgul Ctrditnvest P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Prcit, Delhi-7, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2519/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 44ASection 68

…com 124 (Calcutta). - Rajminder Estates (P) Ltd. Vs. PCIT (2017) 77 taxmann.com 285 (SC). - Shree Manjunatehsware Packing Products & Camphor Works vs. CIT (1998) 96 Taxman 1 (SC). - Order of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachan 384 ITR 200 dated 11.5.2016. - Order of ITAT, F Bench in the case of PTC Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, ITA No. 2860/Del/2010 dated 3.4.2018. - Delhi High Court decision in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT, 99 ITR 375. - ITAT, Delhi Bench decision in the case of Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 3046/Del/2016 for AY 2008-09 order dated 11.1.2…

Ashok Kumar Sinha, Ghaziabad vs. Prcit, Ghaziabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3615/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 263

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3615/DEL/2019 (A.Y. 2009-10) Ashok Kumar Sinha, Vs. Pr. CIT C-258, Govindpuram, 1st Floor, CGO Complex –I, Ghaziabad Hapur Road, PAN : AWKPS6166R Kamla Nehru Nagar Ghaziabad (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA & Ms. Rinki Sharma, ITP Respondent by Sh. Sanjay Goyal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 30.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement 20.08.2019 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed against the order dated 30.03.20…

M/S.True Value Steels, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-29(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 998/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…the Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the learned representative of the assessee has made various submissions, but a pertinent point has been raised, which is based on the ratio of the judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan [384 ITR 200]. It is sought to be emphasized that the basis on which the Commissioner has found the assessment order to be erroneous in his order is quite different from the point raised in the show cause noticed issued u/s. 263 of the Act, and that in fact the error finally established in the impugned order was not put to the assessee at all. On this basis,…

Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co.Ltd., Lucknow vs. ACIT, Central Circle - I, Lucknow, Kanpur

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 607/ALLD/2000[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2019AY 1995-96

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiay: 1995-96 Sahara India Commercial Vs. Acit, Cc-1 Corporation Ltd. Lucknow (Erstwhile Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co.Ltd.) Sahara India Sadan 2A, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata 700 071 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. J.K.Mishra, CIT, D.R

Section 263

…that arose during assessment year 1994-95 in assessee’s own case. He placed reliance upon following decisions in support of his arguments: ITA 607/Alld/2000 AY 1995-96 Sahara India Mutual Benefit Company Ltd. Vs. ACIT, CC-1, Lucknow  CIT vs Amitabh Bachchan 384 ITR 200 (SC)  BSESE Rajdhani power Ltd vs DCIT reported in 339 ITR 228 (Del)  CIT vs Rathee Lal Bacharilal and Sons reported in (2006) 153 Taxmann 86 (BOM)  CIT vs Panna Knitting Industries reported in (2002) 123 Taxmann 216 (Gujarat)  CIT vs Mill Stones Pvt. Ltd (2002) 120 taxman 859 (Madras)  Aditi Technologies Pvt.Ltd vs ITO reported in (2014) 47…

Sh. Sanjeev Singh, Karnal vs. Pr. CIT, Karnal

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

ITA 1781/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Sanjeev Singh, Vs Pr. Cit, 861, Sector-9 U.E, Karnal. Karnal. Pan: Chkps0618H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Shri Somil Aggarwal & Sobhit Revenue By : Shri Kanwaljit Singh, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.04.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 3Rd February, 2016 Passed U/S 263(1) Of The It Act, 1961 By The Pcit, Karnal, Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 6Th July, 2011 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,58,105/- & Agricultural Income Of Rs.5 Lakhs. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) On 10Th January, 2014 Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.6,30,545/- & Agricultural Income Of Rs.5 Lakhs. Subsequently, The Ld.Cit Issued

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Kanwaljit Singh, CIT, DR

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

…mandir Estates (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT (2016) 386 ITR 162 (Calcutta); 7 Rajmandir Estates (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT (2017) 77 taxmann.com 285 (SC); (v) Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works vs. CIT (1998) 231 ITR 53 (SC); (vi) CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan, 384 ITR 200 (SC); and (vii) PTC Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (ITA No.2860/Del/2010, order dated 03.04.2018) (ITAT Delhi). 10. Referring to the explanation 2 that has been inserted in section 263 of the IT Act by the Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01.06.2015, he submitted that the order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far…

Tata Consultancy Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax - Large Taxpayer'S Unit, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 2794/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2794/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Tata Consultancy Services बिाम/ The Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax-Large Tax 9Th Floor, Nirmal Building, Payer‟S Unit, V. Nariman Point, 29Th Floor, Centre One Mumbai- 400021 World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacr4849R (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. R. R. Vora & Shri. Nikhil Tiwari Revenue By: Shri. R. Manjunatha Swamy (Cit-Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.04.2019

For Appellant: Shri. R. R. Vora &For Respondent: Shri. R. Manjunatha Swamy

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 263Section 263(1)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “E” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2794/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Tata Consultancy Services बिाम/ The Commissioner of Ltd., Income Tax-Large Tax 9th floor, Nirmal Building, Payer‟s Unit, v. Nariman Point, 29th Floor, Centre One Mumbai- 400021 World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN: AAACR4849R (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri. R. R. Vora & Shri. Nikhil Tiwa…

Rajesh Kumar, Hisar vs. CIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3337/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Rajesh Kumar, Vs. Cit, 1931, Gate No. 2, Behind Hisar M.G. Road, Hisar Pan :Aohpk1201L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Manoj Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Smt. Sulekha Verma, Cit(Dr)

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: “F”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Rajesh Kumar, Vs. CIT, 1931, Gate No. 2, Behind Hisar M.G. Road, Hisar PAN :AOHPK1201L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Manoj Kumar, Adv. Respondent by Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 05.03.2019 Date of pronouncement 29.03.2019 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 26/03/2013 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hisar (in short ‘the Ld. CIT’ ) under section…