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

Bhargab Engineering Works, Howrah vs. PCIT, Central Kolkata 2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1161/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.: 1161/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Bhargab Engineering Works PCIT, Central, Kolkata-2 Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAIFB2118G Appearances: Assessee represented by : Miraj D. Shah, AR. Department represented by : Raja Sengupta, CIT (DR). Date of concluding the hearing : 08-September-2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 28-November-2025 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the ld. Princi…

Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur vs. Rahul Kathuria, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 152/RPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.151 & 152/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 The Income Tax Officer/Income Tax Officer-3(1) Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 148

…t which were used against the assessee without enabling the assessee to put forth his defence, such procedure defeats the rules of natural justice of doctrine of audi alteram partem. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Amitabh 14. Bachhan (2016) 384 ITR 200 (SC) while upholding the mandatory requirement for adhering to the principles of natural justice, in any proceedings by a quasi-judicial authority also referred to the decision in the case of the C.I.T., West Bengal, II, Calcutta Vs. M/s. Electro House, (1972) 82 ITR 824 (SC), wherein it was held and observed that a breach of principles of natura…

Income Tax Officer, Raipur vs. Rahul Kathuria, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 151/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.151 & 152/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 The Income Tax Officer/Income Tax Officer-3(1) Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 148

…t which were used against the assessee without enabling the assessee to put forth his defence, such procedure defeats the rules of natural justice of doctrine of audi alteram partem. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Amitabh 14. Bachhan (2016) 384 ITR 200 (SC) while upholding the mandatory requirement for adhering to the principles of natural justice, in any proceedings by a quasi-judicial authority also referred to the decision in the case of the C.I.T., West Bengal, II, Calcutta Vs. M/s. Electro House, (1972) 82 ITR 824 (SC), wherein it was held and observed that a breach of principles of natura…

Microsoft Corporation (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2933/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2019-20
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…has not been imposed or that by the application of the relevant statute on an incorrect or incomplete interpretation a lesser tax than what was just has been imposed. 23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Amitabh Bachchan reported in the case of 69 Taxmann.com 170 held that the power of appeal and revision is contained in Chapter XX of the Act which includes section 263 that confers suo-motu power of revision in the Commissioner. The different shades of power conferred on different authorities under the Act has to be exercised within the areas specifically delineated by the Act and the exercise of p…

Alicon Castalloy Ltd, Pune vs. PCIT, -1, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1377/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1377/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Alicon Castalloy Ltd., V The Pr.Commissioner Of Gat No.1426, Village S Income Tax-1, Pune. Shikrapur, Taluka Shirur, Pune – 412208. Pan: Aabcp0252B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil S Pathak Revenue By Shri Aditya Shukla – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-1, Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 27.03.2025 For Assessment Year 2020-21 Emanating From The Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The Act, Dated 20.09.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1] The Learned Pr.C1T Erred In Revising The Asst, Order Passed U/S

Section 143(3)Section 263

…during assessment proceedings. Therefore, once Assessing Officer arrived at a conclusion which is a plausible view, the Pr.CIT is precluded from invoking jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act. 9.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Amitabh Bachchan, 384 ITR 200(SC) observed as under : “21. There can be no doubt that so long as the view taken by the Assessing Officer is a possible view the same ought not to be interfered with by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act merely on the ground that there is another possible view of the matter. Permitting exercise of revisional power in a situation where…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Madurai vs. Transworld Garnet India Pvt Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1877/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri. R.Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री जॉर्ज जॉर्ज के, उपाध्यक्ष एवं श्री एस.आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.:1872, 1873, 1875, 1877 & 1878/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle -2, Madurai. vs. Transworld Garnet India Pvt. Ltd., 500, Pantheaon Road, Egmore S.O., Chennai - 600 008. [PAN: AAACT-3408-N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appel…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Madurai vs. Transworld Garnet India Pvt Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1875/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1872, 1873, 1875, 1877 & 1878/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle -2, Madurai. Vs. Transworld Garnet India Pvt. Ltd., 500, Pantheaon Road, Egmore S.O., Chennai - 600 008. [Pan: Aaact-3408-N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R.Venkata Raman, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : These Five Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Id.Cit(A)”]. The Impugned Orders Of The Id.Cit(A) Arise Out Of The Assessment Orders Framed By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Madurai [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ao”], In Respect Of The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2017-18. The Particulars Of The Respective Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Set Out Hereinbelow:- S. No

For Appellant: Shri. R.Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री जॉर्ज जॉर्ज के, उपाध्यक्ष एवं श्री एस.आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.:1872, 1873, 1875, 1877 & 1878/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle -2, Madurai. vs. Transworld Garnet India Pvt. Ltd., 500, Pantheaon Road, Egmore S.O., Chennai - 600 008. [PAN: AAACT-3408-N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appel…

Ardent Steels Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 337/RPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 337/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"Assessment Year: 2020-21)

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…e, the action u/s 263 was in violation of principle of natural justice and not providing alleged material amounts to denial of proper/ reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Reliance was placed on the decision of CIT Vs Amitabh Bachchan (2016) 384 ITR 200 (SC) and Kamlesh Jain & Sons HUF Vs ITO, ITA no. 26/RPR/2021 dated 29.09.2021. Ld. AR further placed his reliance on the decision extracted (supra). Ld. AR also placed on record various comments qua the observations of Ld. PCIT, the 22 Ardent Steels Private Limited vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 same are extracted (supra). Regarding license of Iron Ore b…

Navudai Shikshan and Jan Kalyan Sewa Samiti, Kanpur vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

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

ITA 96/LKW/2021[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Oct 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Navudai Shikshan & Jan Kalyan Sewa Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Samiti, 117/K/30, Sarvodaya Nagar, Tax (Exemption), Lucknow Kanpur-208005 Pan: Aagfn4916N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.10.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit (Exemption), Lucknow Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 30.03.2021 Setting Aside The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act For The A.Y. 2016-17 On 15.12.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because The Order Passed By Cit(E) U/S 263 Of The Act Dt. 30.03.2021 Is Without Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Be Quashed. 02. Because The Order Passed By Ao, Being Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue The Action Of The Cit(E) Set-Asiding The Said Order Is Without Jurisdiction, Contrary To The Provisions Of Law, Be Quashed. 03. Because The Order Passed By The Ao Being Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue, The Cit(E) Has Erred In Law In Setting Aside The Same, The Order Passed By Cit(E) Be Quashed & That As Passed By The Ao Be Restored. 04. Because The Cit(E) Has Failed To Appreciate That The Initial Assessment Was A Deep Scrutiny Assessment Framed U/S 143(3) Wherein Voluminous Queries Were Raised Which Were Complied With & Thoroughly Examined/ Verified By The Ao, The Necessary Enquiring Having Being Done, It Is Neither A Case Of No Inquiring Or Lack Of Enquiring, As Such The Cit(E) Has Erred In Setting Aside The Assessment Order, The Order Passed By Cit(E) Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 260ASection 263

…rtaining to students of SC, ST & OBC category was not believable as in their books of accounts, the assessee had shown that it had given advances to UPTU and Samaj Kalyan. Therefore, after considering various case laws including CIT vs. Amitabh Bachhan (2016) 384 ITR 200 (SC). Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. vs. PCIT-3, Kolkata (2017) 245 taxman 127 (SC). PCIT, Ludhiana vs. Venus Woollen Mills (2019) 412 ITR 188 (P&H) and CIT vs. Ballarpur Industries (2017) 85 taxman.com 10 (Bombay), the ld. CIT(A) held that there was clear non- application of mind on the part of the ld. AO inasmuch as necessary enquiries should have…

Ambience Developers and Infrastructure Private Limited, Delhi vs. PCIT (Central), Delhi-2 Jhandewalan, New Delhi, Delhi

ITA 1868/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Mahesh Kumar CA &For Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…Page 1 ITA Nos.1868 & 1869/Del/2025 Ambience Developers and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2018-19 & 2020-21) THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1868 & 1869/Del/2025 (Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21) Ambience Developers and Vs. PCIT (Central) Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. L-4, Green Park Exten. Delhi – 110016 Room No. 341, 2nd Floor, ARA Centre, Jhandewalan Delhi – 110055 स्थायी लेखासं . / जी आइआरसं . / PAN/GIR No: AAECA6894P Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Mahesh Kumar CA & Sh. Meenal Goyal, CA Ms. Ni…

Sachin Notified Area, Surat vs. Pr. CIT, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 248/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 10(20)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 263

…gible to claim exemption u/s 10(20) of the Act. Since the AO failed to make the above addition, the ld. PCIT, after considering decisions in cases of Parulbhai Patel vs. ACIT, 367 ITR 234 (Guj.), Jet Airways, 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) and CIT-1 vs. Amitabh Bachchan, 384 ITR 200 (SC), held that the assessment order dated 30.03.2022 by the AO was erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue u/s 263 of the Act. He issued show cause notice to the assessee, which is at pages 8 and 9 of the order u/s 263 of the Act. The reply of the assessee in para 4.1 at pages 9 and 10 of the order u/s 263 of the Act…

Sachin Notified Area, Surat vs. Pr. CIT, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 247/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 10(20)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 263

…gible to claim exemption u/s 10(20) of the Act. Since the AO failed to make the above addition, the ld. PCIT, after considering decisions in cases of Parulbhai Patel vs. ACIT, 367 ITR 234 (Guj.), Jet Airways, 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) and CIT-1 vs. Amitabh Bachchan, 384 ITR 200 (SC), held that the assessment order dated 30.03.2022 by the AO was erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue u/s 263 of the Act. He issued show cause notice to the assessee, which is at pages 8 and 9 of the order u/s 263 of the Act. The reply of the assessee in para 4.1 at pages 9 and 10 of the order u/s 263 of the Act…

Sachin Notified Area, Surat vs. Pr. CIT, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 246/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 10(20)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 263

…gible to claim exemption u/s 10(20) of the Act. Since the AO failed to make the above addition, the ld. PCIT, after considering decisions in cases of Parulbhai Patel vs. ACIT, 367 ITR 234 (Guj.), Jet Airways, 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) and CIT-1 vs. Amitabh Bachchan, 384 ITR 200 (SC), held that the assessment order dated 30.03.2022 by the AO was erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue u/s 263 of the Act. He issued show cause notice to the assessee, which is at pages 8 and 9 of the order u/s 263 of the Act. The reply of the assessee in para 4.1 at pages 9 and 10 of the order u/s 263 of the Act…

Sachin Notified Area, Surat vs. The Pr. Commissioner O Income Tax - 1, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 223/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 10(20)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 263

…gible to claim exemption u/s 10(20) of the Act. Since the AO failed to make the above addition, the ld. PCIT, after considering decisions in cases of Parulbhai Patel vs. ACIT, 367 ITR 234 (Guj.), Jet Airways, 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) and CIT-1 vs. Amitabh Bachchan, 384 ITR 200 (SC), held that the assessment order dated 30.03.2022 by the AO was erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue u/s 263 of the Act. He issued show cause notice to the assessee, which is at pages 8 and 9 of the order u/s 263 of the Act. The reply of the assessee in para 4.1 at pages 9 and 10 of the order u/s 263 of the Act…

Perfect Filaments Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid decision

ITA 3501/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailperfect Filaments Limited, E-23/24/25/26, Commerce Centre, Tardeo Road Tulsi Wadi, S.O., ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400034 Pan : Aaacp4215F V/S Principal Commissiioner Of Income Tax-4 ……………… Respondent 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400020 Assessee By : Shri Dharan Gandhi Revenue By : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 201Section 263Section 40Section 80G

…isions of section 263 of the Act, which specifically requires the grant of an opportunity to be heard to be given to the assessee before passing the order under section 263 of the Act. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan, (2016) 384 ITR 200 (SC) observed as follows:- “10 … What is contemplated by Section 263, is an opportunity of hearing to be afforded to the assessee. Failure to give such an opportunity would render the revisional order legally fragile not on the ground of lack of jurisdiction but on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.” 13. Accordingly, the d…

Arvind Kumar, Panipat vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 2178/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 37Section 69C

…only. The ld AR argued that the reliance on the decision of NK Protein is not entirely correct and that the PCIT failed to point out enquiry not conducted by the AO. The ld AR relied on the decision taken by hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs Amitabh Bachchan 384 ITR 200; Malabar Industrial Co Ltd 243ITR 83 Hon’ble Rajkot ITAT Bench in the case of Shashikant Bhavajjibhai Page 3 of 7 ITA No. 2178 /DEL/2025 Arvind Kumar Vs PCIT [A.Y 2018-19] Rajpara vs PCIT, ITA 59/RJT/2022 (dated 22.3.2023) and Vijuba Jutubha Jadeja vs PCIT, ITA 105/RJT/2022 (dated 2.8.2023). 8. Per contra the ld DR heavily relied on the or…

Aha Holdings Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 6(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 1340/MUM/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Aha Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Circle 6(1)(1), Unit No.404, New Udyog Mandir No.2 Aaykar Bhavan, Mogul Lane, Mahim West, Maharishi Karve Road, Vs. Mumbai-400016 New Marine Lines, Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aafcs 6404E Appellant By : Shri K. Gopal & Ms. Neha Paranjpe Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, (Cit- Dr) (Appellant) (Respondent) Date Of Hearing : 11.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Ms. Neha ParanjpeFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, (CIT- DR)
Section 133ASection 147Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VP AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, AM AHA Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Circle 6(1)(1), Unit No.404, New Udyog Mandir No.2 Aaykar Bhavan, Mogul Lane, Mahim West, Maharishi Karve Road, Vs. Mumbai-400016 New Marine Lines, Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) : (Respondent) PAN NO. AAFCS 6404E Appellant by : Shri K. Gopal & Ms. Neha Paranjpe Respondent by : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, (CIT- DR) (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of Hearing : 11.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 19.08.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, VP: This is an appeal by the assessee challenging the ord…

Manju Rakesh Jain, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-20, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2280/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Manju Rakesh Jain, Pcit, Mumbai-20 704-A, Highland Park, Lokhanwala 418, 4Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Complex, Andheri West, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400058. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aaepj 9613 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi, CA
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 57

…be issued by CIT prior to passing of his revisional order u/s 263 revisional order u/s 263 11. CIT Vs Amitabh Bachhan (69 taxmann.com 170, 240 11. CIT Vs Amitabh Bachhan (69 taxmann.com 170, 240 11. CIT Vs Amitabh Bachhan (69 taxmann.com 170, 240 Taxman 221, 384 ITR 200, 286 CTR 113 Taxman 221, 384 ITR 200, 286 CTR 113 Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Section 263 Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Section 263 does not does not require any specific show cause notice detailing specific require any specific show cause notice detailing specific require any specific show cause notice detailing specific grounds on which r…

Nirmal Bang Securities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai 4, Mumbai

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed

ITA 2454/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Nirmal Bang Securities P. Ltd. Pcit B-2, Marathon Innova, Aayakar Bhavan Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Vs. M.K. Road Opp. Peninsula Corporate Churchgate Lower Parel West Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 013. Pan : Aaacn7369I Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: Shri Anant N. Pai
Section 135Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 80GSection 80G(2)(iiihk)

…y the Assessing Officer on the deduction of Rs. 16,21,276/- claimed under Section 80G out of the CSR expenditure. This lack of inquiry on a key issue makes the assessment order erroneous. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan [(2016) 384 ITR 200 (SC)], if the Assessing Officer does not examine an important issue during assessment, the order can be revised under Section 263. This principle is also supported by Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [(2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC)], where it was held that an order passed without proper inquiry or with incorrect application of law can be revised if it…

Strata Geosystems (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -8, Mumbai

ITA 2447/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Strata Geosystems (India) P. Ltd. Pcit Plot No. A-15/16, Sabnam 6Th Floor House, Central Cross Road B Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Midc, Andheri East M.K. Road Mumbai-400 093. Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aaics3717K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 135Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80G

…t where the Assessing Officer fails to examine a material issue or to apply the correct legal position, the order can be termed as 6 erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ld. CIT(A) v. Amitabh Bachchan [(2016) 384 ITR 200 (SC)] observed that non-enquiry into a significant claim may render the assessment order vulnerable to revision. Similarly, in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [(2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC)], the Court held that orders passed without application of mind or proper verification are amenable to revision under Section 263. VI. In light of the above, wher…