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 366,005 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

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

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3608/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

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…

Mumbai District Central Co Op Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 1(1), Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3198/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 The Mumbai District Cit-1, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd. M.K. Road, Mumbai Bank Bhavan Mumbai 400 020 Vs. 207, D.H. Road, Fort Mumbai 400 001 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaaam3185D यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Amar Gahlot याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri B. Srinivas, Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/03/2018 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 22/03/2018

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ, जे, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “J”, MUMBAI श्री जोगगन्दय स िंह, न्मायमक दस्म एवुं श्री एन. के. प्रधान, रेखा दस्म, के भक्ष Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Mumbai District CIT-1, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. M.K. Road, Mumbai Bank Bhavan Mumbai 400 020 Vs. 207, D.H. Road, Fort Mumbai 400 001 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. AAAAM3185D यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee by Shri Amar Gahlot याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by Shri B. Srinivas, C…

ACIT Cir 7(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Laxmi Venture (India) Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6379/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, Circle-7(1)(2) M/S. Laxmi Venture India Room No.130, First Floor, बनाम/ Ltd., 36/40, Mahalaxmi Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bridge Arcade, Vs. Road, Mumbai 400 020 Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400 037 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacl1982G यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Haridas Bhat याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Ms. Aarju Garodia ुनवाई की तायीख / 12/03/2018 Date Of Hearing : आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 12/03/2018

Section 263Section 73

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ, जे, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “J”, MUMBAI श्री जोगगन्दय स िंह, न्मायमक दस्म एवुं श्री एन. के. प्रधान, रेखा दस्म, के भक्ष Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2009-10 ACIT, Circle-7(1)(2) M/s. Laxmi Venture India Room no.130, First Floor, बनाम/ Ltd., 36/40, mahalaxmi Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bridge Arcade, Vs. Road, Mumbai 400 020 Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400 037 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. AAACL1982G यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee by Shri Haridas Bhat याजस्व की ओर से /…

Damodar Valley Corporation, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-9, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 401/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Damadar Valley V/S. Dcit, Circle-9, Corporation, Dvc Towers Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, (4Th Floor), Vip Chowringhee Square Road,Kolkata-54 Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aabcd 0541 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Fca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Md. Usman Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 17-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 21-02-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Dispute The Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Kolkata Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 12.01.2017 Set Aside The Assessment Order Date30.03.2015 For Assessment Year 2012-13 With A Direction To Re-Do The Assessment In Respect Of Issue Therein. Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Ld. Authorized Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Md. Usman, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit Was Unjustified In Law In Holding The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Passed For The A.Y. 2012-13 To Be Erroneous In So Far As It Was Prejudicial To The Interest Of

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

…l. Page 11 conducted by the AO during assessment proceedings without affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 7.2 We also find support & guidance from the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan reported in 384 ITR 200 where it was concluded that the ld CIT can proceed to adjudicate other issues other than what is mentioned in the original show cause notice. But the same could be done only after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee to address on the new issue taken up by the ld CIT. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced below : “What i…

Surendra L. Hiranandani, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 1, Mumbai

In the result all the appeals for A

ITA 3226/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri N. K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: ShriManjunatha Swamy

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 24Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N. K. PRADHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3226/M/2017, 3227/M/2017, 3228/M/2017, 3229/M/2017, 3230/M/2017, 3231/M/2017, 3232/M/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09,2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Shri Surendra L. Hiranandani Principal Commissioner of 2nd Floor, Neptune Court, Income Tax, Central – I Vs. 60, L Jagmohandas Marg, Mumbai Mumbai – 400006 PAN NO. AAAPH1094H (Assessee) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue by : ShriManjunatha Swamy Date of Hearing : 24.01.…

Startech Engineers, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 22, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3898/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 Startech Engineers, Pr. Commissioner Of G-12, Sinhgarjane Soc. Income Tax-22, बनाम/ Maratha Colony, Room No.409, 4Th Floor, Vs. Santracruz (E), Piramal Chambers, Parel Mumbai-400055 Mumbai-400012 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaxfs3063J "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri D.C.Saboo & Shri Shyam Saboo राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Manjunatha Swamy-Dr

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)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 "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2012-13 Startech Engineers, Pr. Commissioner of G-12, Sinhgarjane Soc. Income Tax-22, बनाम/ Maratha Colony, Room No.409, 4th Floor, Vs. Santracruz (E), Piramal Chambers, Parel Mumbai-400055 Mumbai-400012 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. AAXFS3063J "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri D.C.Saboo & Shri Shyam Saboo राज"व क"…

Ambuja Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Ltu, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3563/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2010-11 Ambuja Cements Limited Cit Ltu, (Formerly Known As Gujarat Mumbai. Vs. Ambuja Cement Limited), Elegant Business Park, Midc Cross Road B, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 059. Pan Aacg0569P (Appellant) Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Soumen AdakFor Respondent: Shri R P Meena

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

…e 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 4 M/s. Ambuja Cements Limited. th…

Cr Retail Mall (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT City 6, Mumbai

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee

ITA 2583/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Cr Retail Malls (India) Ltd. Cit, City-6, Lotus Grandeur, 7Th Floor, Opp. 501, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Gundecha Symphony, Veera Desai M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Vs. Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400069. Pan: Aabcc9162F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta (AR)For Respondent: Shri H.N. Singh (CIT DR)

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s CR Retail Malls (India) Ltd. CIT, City-6, Lotus Grandeur, 7th Floor, Opp. 501, 5th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Gundecha Symphony, Veera Desai M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Vs. Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400069. PAN: AABCC9162F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Vijay Mehta (AR) Revenue by : Shri H.N. Singh (CIT DR) Date of hearing : 31.08.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 25.10.2017 Order Under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This a…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central -02) vs. Mera Baba Reality Associates Pvt. Ltd

ITA/509/2017HC Delhi21 Aug 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 131(1)Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…t done so on account ofpaucity oftime, there cannot beany inference that the inadequate inquiry led to the AO to arrive at incorrect facts. 15. Reliance is also placed by Mr. Rahul Chaudhary on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v Amitabh Bachhan [2016] 384 ITR 200 (SC). There the Supreme Court found, on facts, that the Assessee after having claimed an exemption during the course of the assessment proceedings,- withdrew such claims despite which no enquiry was undertaken by the AO into this aspect. This, according to the Supreme Court, ought not to have resulted inthe proceedings simply being dropped by the…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax(Central-02) vs. Mera Baba Reality Associates Pvt. Ltd

ITA/637/2017HC Delhi21 Aug 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 131(1)Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central -02) vs. Mera Baba Reality Associates Pvt. Ltd

ITA/508/2017HC Delhi21 Aug 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 131(1)Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-02) vs. Mera Baba Reality Associates Pvt. Ltd

ITA/507/2017HC Delhi21 Aug 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 131(1)Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

Infinity Infotech, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-2(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 329/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Dilip S.Damle, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 35Section 35(1)(iii)Section 35A

…the aspect of lack of enquiry by the AO before completing the assessment and therefore order of CIT should be quashed. In this regard it was also pointed out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent decision rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Amitabh Bhachan 384 ITR 200 (SC) has ITA No.329/Kol/2017 Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd A.Y.2012-13 5 taken the view that the CIT can go into any issues which are not set out in the show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act, but the assessee has to be put on notice, in the course of proceedings u/s 263 of the Act, on the issue which is not set out in the show cause notice u/s 263…

M/S. Pearl Drinks Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 3712/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. FR Meena, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

…ollowing orders of the Tribunal & Hon’ble Gujrat High Court:- 7 ITR 205 [2011] ITAT, Delhi b. ITO Vs. Hardrock Electric & Engg Co. ITA No. 4955/Mum/2008, ITAT Mumbai 44 Taxmann.com 206 [2014] Gujarat High Court d. Amitabh Bachchan Corpn. Ltd VS. DCIT 56 Taxmann.com 77 [2015] [Mum-Tri] ITAT, Mumbai 5. Replying to the above, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) strongly supported the action of the A.O and contended that the CIT(A) after proper appreciation of facts upheld the order of the A.O on this issue which requires no interference. 6. On careful consideration of above in the present case the A…

M/S Mewat Grit Udyog, New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1802/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, advocate&For Respondent: Smt.Sulekha Verma, CIT/DR

Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 263Section 40

…n 263 of the Act cannot be initiated for inadequate enquiry, but only for lack of enquiry which is a distinct from inadequate enquiry and for this proposition he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan 384 ITR 200 (SC) and the decisions of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation 357 ITR 388 (del), Ld. CIT(A) vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd 332 ITR 167 (del), ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Limited 343 ITR 329 (Del), Ld. CIT(A) vs. Leisurewear Exports Ltd 341 ITR 166 (Del) etc. Basing on CIT vs. DLF Ltd 350 ITR 555 (Del), PCIT vs. Del…

Aakriti Landcon P. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Principal CIT, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 433/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: The Merit Of The Matter Which Has Been Put Up For Our Consideration.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sayyat Nasir Ali (CIT)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ ITA No. 433/JP/16 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 20211-12 cuke M/s Aakriti Landcon (P) Ltd. The Pr. Commissioner of Vs. Income Tax, Kota Srinath Residency, MBS Nagar, Kota LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AAFCA 5925 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri S…

Raptakos Brett and Co.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 5, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2251/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2251/Mum/2015 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) बनधम/ M/S Raptakos Brett & Co.Ltd. The Principal Commissioner Of 253, Dr.Annier Besant Road, Income Tax, Vs. Room No.559, 5Th Floor, Worli, Mumbai-400030 Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road Mumbai-400020 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan :Aaacr1772R अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Appellant By Shri Yogesh Thar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By Shri B Pruseth सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :22.12.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.2.2015, Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Setting Aside The Assessing Order & Directing The Ao To Withdraw The Deduction Allowed By The Ao In Respect Of Advance To Subsidiary Written Off & Charged To The Profit & Loss Account.

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 256Section 263

…oner has rightly held that the deduction of Rs.74,13,000/- was allowed without verification of facts and without application of mind by the AO. The ld. DR also relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of (a) CIT V Amitabh Bachchan [2016] 384 ITR 200 (SC) (b) Rampyari Devi Saraogi V/s CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) (c) Decision of Full Bench of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT V/s Jawahar Bhattachagee (341 ITR 434), (d) the decision of Hon’ble Karnatak High Court in the cae of CIT V/s Infosys Technologies Ltd reported in 17 Taxmann.com 203 (Kar) and (e) the Decision of the Special Ben…

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, impugned order dated 31

ITA 2193/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Anadi N Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Chander, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 263

…Contimeters Electricals (P) Ltd. 317 ITR 249 (D) Ld. CIT (DR) appearing for Revenue strongly supported the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act and relied on it heavily. He also drew our attention to order of apex court in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan 384 ITR 200 (SC) to support the impugned order u/s 263 of I.T. Act. (E) We have heard both sides and we have also perused the materials on record carefully. As far as first issue, numbered (I) in foregoing paragraph C of this order is concerned, we find that it is not in dispute that the details as required by the Assessing Officer in the questionnaire dur…

Chandan M Parmar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4601/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (AR)For Respondent: Shri Subhlachan Ram & Ms

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 2(14)Section 253Section 263Section 43(5)Section 68

…the assessment order about the Gain on agricultural land, thus the order passed by AO is not only erroneous but prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The ld. DR for Revenue relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan (2016) 384 ITR 200 (SC) and the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in Arvee International Vs ACIT (2006) 101 ITD 495(Mumbai). 5. We have considered the rival contention of ld. AR of the parties and perused the order of AO as well as the order passed by ld Pr. Commissioner u/s 263 of the Act. In the return of income, the assessee claimed Gain of Rs. 7,30,30,890/- on sale o…

M/S Bhadra Education Trust, Davangere vs. CIT, Davangere

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 607/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri. Shreehari Kulsa, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar, CIT - III

Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 263

…CIT. With regard to the assessee’s submission that the CIT has not followed his proposal to charge interest @ 12% p.a on the excess lease deposit of Rs.9,00,000/- etc , the DR pointed out para 10 of the judgment in the case of CIT, Mumbai V Amitabh Bachchan 384 ITR 200, (2016) 69 taxmann.com 170 SC, (relevant portion only is extracted as under) : “10. Reverting to the specific provisions of Section 263 of the Act what has to be seen is that a satisfaction that an order passed by the Authority under the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue is the basic pre- condition for exercise of…