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 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

M/S Ramgad Minerals and Mining Ltd., Hospet vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gulbarga

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

ITA 1484/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Ramgad Minerals & Mining Ltd., Abheraj Baldota Road, Hospet-583203. … Appellant Pan:Aaacr 8532 R Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Bellary. … Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. R.Prathibha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 40a

…whereas in the present case, the learned Principal CIT was of the view that even ITA Nos.1484/Bang/2015 Page 6 of 8 the nature of claim was not examined and no enquiry was caused on this issue. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachan (384 ITR 200) after reviewing several authorities on the power of revision vested u/s 263 held that when facts and circumstance warrant further investigation the power of revision of the CIT was held to be justified. In the present case also the assessee-company had made a claim through revised of income claiming sale of Carbon credit as capital receipt. The…

M/S Pearl Deinks Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on both the counts

ITA 2123/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

Section 133Section 133(6)

…a. Forte Point Construction P. Ltd 7 ITR 205 [2011] ITAT, Delhi b. ITO Vs. Hardrock Electric & Engg Co. ITA No. 4955/Mum/2008, ITAT Mumbai c. CIT Vs. BMS Projects (P) Ltd 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…

Gail (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

In the result we quash the impugned order passed u/s 263 of the Act by ld CIT dated 24

ITA 1784/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishigail (India) Ltd, Cit, 16, Bhikaji Cama Place, Delhi-Iv, Vs. New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacg1209J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Paramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37

…re where in the order u/s 263 , he has take a vi that these are in the nature of capital expenditure. We are of the view that now this issue does not required to be adjudicated in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT V Amitabh Bacchan [384 ITR 200] that 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 question of fact;…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dr. T.Ravi Kumar

ITTA/382/2012HC Telangana24 Jul 2013