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 263Section 143(3)Section 147Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 148Section 143(2)Section 151
Read the full judgment

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

Ramesh Kumar Goyal HUF, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward-3, Hisar

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1983/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillaidr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Ramesh Kumar Ito, H.No.467, Urban Estate-Ii, Ward- 3, Hisar, Hisar, Vs. Hisar Haryana, Pin: 125005

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampat, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…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 quest…

Ramesh Kumar, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward-3, Hisar

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1982/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillaidr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Ramesh Kumar Ito, H.No.467, Urban Estate-Ii, Ward- 3, Hisar, Hisar, Vs. Hisar Haryana, Pin: 125005

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampat, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…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 quest…

Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Pr CIT, Gurgaon

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3046/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kambleperfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. Cit(A) Global Business Park, Gurgaon Tower-A, 1St Floor, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road Gurgaon Aaacp2626A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 144CSection 263Section 80Section 80I

…C) (b) Rajmandir Estates (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT (2016) 386 ITR 162 (Cal.) (c) Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. vs. PCIT (2017) 245 Taxman 127 (SC) (d) Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works vs. CIT (1998) 231 ITR 53 (SC) (e) CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan 384 ITR 200 (SC) (f) PTC Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT ITA No. 2860/DEL/2010 order dated 03.04.2018. 11. We have heard both the parties and perused all the records. It is pertinent to note that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing of a variety of confectionary productions which includes Big Babool, Alpenlibe, Centre Fresh, Center Fruit, Center Shok, C…

Shri Hari Ram Yadav, Alwar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar

ITA 215/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Dec 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 263Section 54B

…uirement of service of notice under section 34 cannot, therefore, be applied to a proceeding under section 33B.” 23. The above legal proposition has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its latest decision in case of CIT vs Amitabh Bachchan (2016) 384 ITR 200 as under: “9. Under the Act different shades of power have been conferred on different authorities to deal with orders of assessment passed by the primary authority. While Section 147 confers power on the Assessing Authority itself to proceed against income escaping assessment, Section 154 of the Act empowers such authority to correct a mistake a…

M/S Mann & Hummel Filter Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 798/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)(Bengaluru)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…e addition made of Rs.2,92,94,687/-, I am of the opinion that there is concealment of income and fit case to levy penalty u/s/271(1)( c) of the Act ….” 15. He further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amitabh Bachchan 384 ITR 200 (SC). In the aforesaid case a revisional order u/s.263 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) was in challenge. The CIT proposed to revise the order of Page 10 of 21 assessment already passed on certain grounds set out in the show cause notice. However, in the course of proceedings u/s.263 of the Act, he noticed certain other aspects of…

Jitinder Singh Chadha, New Delhi vs. Prcit-18, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2732/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiita No. 2732/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Mr. Jitindar Singh Chadha, Vs Pr. Cit-18, C-266, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110024 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpc6181D Assessee By : Sh. R. S. Ahuja, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2018 Of Ld. Pr. Cit-18, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55A

…8/Del/2017 (ITAT Del.) " Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) " Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. Vs PCIT (2016) 386 ITR 162 (Cal.) " Shree manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works Vs CIT (19981) 231 ITR 53 (SC) " CIT Vs Amitabh Bachhan 384 ITR 200 " CIT Vs Ralson Industries Ltd. 288 ITR 322 12. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the ld. Pr. CIT passed the Assessment Order which could have been passed by the Assessing Officer only, since the powers has been given under Sect…

Vijaya Bank, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

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

ITA 1163/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Vijaya Bank, Head Office, Central Accounts Dept. 41/2, M.G. Road, Bengaluru-560 001. … Appellant Pan:Aaacv 4791 J Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Large Tax Unit, Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri S.Ananthan, Ca. Respondent By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr). Date Of Hearing : 30/10/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/12/2018 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee-Bank-Bank, Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ltu, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short].

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 40

…sion. As regards disallowance Page 6 of 9 u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, ld.CIT(DR) submitted that the ld.CIT has given an opportunity of hearing to the assessee-bank. She relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan (384 ITR 200)(SC); decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd. (2017) 17 taxman.com 203(Kar) and the decision of co- ordinate bench in ITA No.177/Bang/2017 dt.13/01/2017 in the case of M/s.Mindtree vs. CIT. 10. We heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The solitary issue in the present ap…

Epsilon Advisors P. Ltd., Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1608/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271

…d the same principle as laid out in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning factory (Supra). As against this, learned DR of the revenue placed reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble apex court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan as reported in 384 ITR 200. He submitted that as per this judgment rendered in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan (Supra), it was held that issue of show cause notice u/s 263 is not mandatory and he submitted that for penalty u/s 271 also, issue of show cause notice is not mandatory and the only requirement under both sections is to extend opportunity of hearing to the a…

Epsilon Advisors P. Ltd., Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1607/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271

…d the same principle as laid out in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning factory (Supra). As against this, learned DR of the revenue placed reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble apex court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan as reported in 384 ITR 200. He submitted that as per this judgment rendered in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan (Supra), it was held that issue of show cause notice u/s 263 is not mandatory and he submitted that for penalty u/s 271 also, issue of show cause notice is not mandatory and the only requirement under both sections is to extend opportunity of hearing to the a…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Epsilon Advisors Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1600/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271

…d the same principle as laid out in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning factory (Supra). As against this, learned DR of the revenue placed reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble apex court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan as reported in 384 ITR 200. He submitted that as per this judgment rendered in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan (Supra), it was held that issue of show cause notice u/s 263 is not mandatory and he submitted that for penalty u/s 271 also, issue of show cause notice is not mandatory and the only requirement under both sections is to extend opportunity of hearing to the a…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Epsilon Advisors Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1569/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271

…d the same principle as laid out in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning factory (Supra). As against this, learned DR of the revenue placed reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble apex court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan as reported in 384 ITR 200. He submitted that as per this judgment rendered in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan (Supra), it was held that issue of show cause notice u/s 263 is not mandatory and he submitted that for penalty u/s 271 also, issue of show cause notice is not mandatory and the only requirement under both sections is to extend opportunity of hearing to the a…

Gumpro Drilling Fluids Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 15, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2868/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Gumpro Drilling Fluids Vs Pr. Cit-15, Private Limited, Room No.517, 5Th Floor, Opp. Karma Stambha, Aayakar Bhavan, Hazarat Compound, Lbs M. K. Road, Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400083 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aadcg2319N "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Ashok J. Patil राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri L.K.S. Dahiya Cit-Dr

Section 120Section 144ASection 263Section 35

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,जी,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2013-14 Gumpro Drilling Fluids vs Pr. CIT-15, Private Limited, Room No.517, 5th Floor, Opp. Karma Stambha, Aayakar Bhavan, Hazarat Compound, LBS M. K. Road, Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400083 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No.AADCG2319N "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Ashok J. Patil राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue b…

Himalaya International Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- 4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2524/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri N.K. Choudharyassessment Year : 2012-13 Himalaya International Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit-4, E-555, Palam Extension, 1St Floor, New Delhi. Sector-7, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110077. Pan: Aaach0158H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Meeta Singh, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

…of notice u/s 263. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Electro 7 House (1971) 82 ITR 824 (SC) has held that it is not necessary for the CIT to issue notice before assuming jurisdiction. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan (2016) 384 ITR 200 (SC) has reiterated the same view by holding that : `It may be that in a given case and in most cases it is so done a notice proposing the revisional exercise is given to the assessee indicating therein broadly or even specifically the grounds on which the exercise is felt necessary. But there is nothing in the section (Section 263) to raise th…

M/S.Oberon Edifices & Estates P. Ltd, Kochi vs. The Pr.CIT, Trivandrum

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

ITA 361/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No. 361/Coch/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Oberon Edifices & Estates Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Oberon Mall, Income-Tax, Trivandrum. Nh Bye-Pass, Edapally, Kochi-682 024. [Pan:Aaaco 7942E]

Section 263

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM & GEORGE GEORGE K., JM I.T.A. No. 361/Coch/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/s. Oberon Edifices and Estates Vs. The Principal Commissioner of Pvt. Ltd., Oberon Mall, Income-tax, Trivandrum. NH Bye-pass, Edapally, Kochi-682 024. [PAN:AAACO 7942E] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessee by Shri Sherry Samuel Oommen, Adv. Revenue by Shri A. Dhanaraj, Sr. DR Date of hearing 19/06/2018 Date of pronouncement 23/07/2018 O R D E R Per CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee…

Manoir Petro India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 1, Mumbai

ITA 2626/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Manoir Petro India Limited, Pr. Cit-1 602, B-Wing, Universal Room No.387, बनाम/ Business Park, Chandivali 3Rd Floor, Vs. Farm Road, Off Saki Vihar Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumbai-400072 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aafcm5210J

Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘आई’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “I”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथ, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri JOGINDER SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2010-11 Manoir Petro India Limited, Pr. CIT-1 602, B-Wing, Universal Room No.387, बनाम/ Business Park, Chandivali 3rd Floor, Vs. Farm Road, Off Saki Vihar Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumbai-400072 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. AAFCM5210J 2 Manoir Petro India Limited ITA No.2626/Mum…

Saraswati Medical Foundation & Research Centre, Kolhapur vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemptions)

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 778/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Shivraj More
Section 11Section 13(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…of notice, even if the other issue is not mentioned in the show cause notice. In support of his submissions the ld. DR placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Amitabh Bachchan reported as 384 ITR 200. The ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer in assessment order has not touched upon the issue. The ld. DR pointed that one of the trustees of the assessee and Apple 5 ITA No. 778/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2010-11 Hospital and Research Institute Ltd. is common. Thus, the arrangement between the assessee and the said hospital are hit by the provisions…

Shri Prem Chand Gupta, Jhalawar vs. Income Tax Officer, Jhalawar

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

ITA 1032/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 May 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Anand Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena, JCIT - DR
Section 44A

…ts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) are as under:- ‘’I have gone through assessee's submission and AO’s findings. The ITAT Mumbai Bench ‘H’ in the case of Amitabh Bachchan Corpn. Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-13, Mumbai 56 Taxmann.com 77 (Mumbai-trib) held. Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Business expenditure – Allowability of (Raw material discarded) –Assessment Year 1999-2000 – Assessee company was engaged in business of producing films, TV serials and audio tapes - It claimed deduction on account of ‘raw material discarded’’ but it could not furnish any rele…

Saigal Sea Trade, Mumbai vs. CIT -18, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2511/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Saigal Sea Trade, Cit-18, J.V. House, 02Nd Floor, D.S. Piramal Chambers, बनाम/ Babrekar Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400028 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaafs6920K

Section 142(1)Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,‘ई’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘E’ MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s Saigal Sea Trade, CIT-18, J.V. House, 02nd Floor, D.S. Piramal Chambers, बनाम/ Babrekar Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400028 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No. AAAFS6920K "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Jitendra Jain Shri Manjunatha Swamy-CIT राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by 07/05/2018 सुनवाई…

Sri Hartaj Sewa Singh, Kolkata vs. DCIT(It), Circle-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1011/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2012-13

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

…has applied his mind on the submissions of the assessee. Moreover, the details filed by the assessee were not relevant to the issues raised by the Ld CIT u/s 263 of the Act. The case law relied by the Ld. AR in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan reported in 384 ITR 200 (SC) is in favour of Revenue, therefore no-reliance can be placed on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in such case. There was International transaction between the assessee and SCPL, which are associated Enterprises therefore the same should have been transferred to the Transfer Pricing Officer for determining the Arm Length’s P…

Gautam Tube Corporation, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 19, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3609/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 120Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘जी’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथ, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri JOGINDER SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member ITA NOs.3608 & 3609/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Gautam Tube Corporation, Pr. CIT-19, 1st Floor, 7, Doshi Bhavan, Room No.228, 02nd Floor, बनाम/ 02nd Carpenter Street, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Raod, Vs. Mumbai-400004 Mumbai-400007 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.AADFG0524A "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Mr. Rajesh Chamaria…