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. Nippon Life India A/F Management Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai -8, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2291/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Nippon Life India Aif Pcit-8 Management Limited Room No. 611 4Th Floor, Tower A Vs. 6Th Floor Peninsula Business Park Aayakar Bhavan Ganpatrao Kadam Marg M.K. Road Lower Parel Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 013. Pan : Aabcr 7663L Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Jitendra Sanghavi, CA
Section 135Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

…ued that the donation must be voluntary and not forced by law as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PVG Raju, Rajah of Vizianagaram. The Ld. DR placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT Vs.Amitabh Bachchan, (2016) 384 ITR 200 and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83, for the proposition that if the Ld. AO does not make proper enquiries, the assessment order becomes erroneous and can be revised under section 263 of the Act. 3 Nippon Life India AIF Management Limited 5. Heard both sides. The Revenue as well appellant have decisions on merits in their f…

The Indian Hume Pipe Co Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3262/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3261/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2020-21) & आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3262/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2021-22) The Indian Hume Pipe Co. V/S. Pcit, Mumbai-1 Ltd. बिाम Room No. 330, 3 Rd Floor, 2Nd Floor, Construction Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Expenses, Walchand Road, Mumbai, Hirachand Marg, Ballard Maharashtra-400020 Estate, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact4063D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri S. C. Tiwari & Ms. Navya Chilukumari राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Mr. R. A. Dhyani

For Appellant: Shri S. C. Tiwari & Ms. NavyaFor Respondent: Mr. R. A. Dhyani
Section 143(3)Section 263

…formed that show cause notice was not issued to the assessee, and the order was passed on the basis of facts and material available on record. Further, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT v/s Amitabh Bachchan 384 ITR 200 (SC), wherein it was held that Section 263 does not require any specific show cause notice and the Ld. CIT(E) is free to exercise his jurisdiction on consideration of the relevant facts. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed before us. Admittedly, Ld. PCIT proceeded to issue the order u/s 263 of the Act on the bas…

The Indian Hume Pipe Co Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3261/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3261/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2020-21) & आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3262/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2021-22) The Indian Hume Pipe Co. V/S. Pcit, Mumbai-1 Ltd. बिाम Room No. 330, 3 Rd Floor, 2Nd Floor, Construction Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Expenses, Walchand Road, Mumbai, Hirachand Marg, Ballard Maharashtra-400020 Estate, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact4063D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri S. C. Tiwari & Ms. Navya Chilukumari राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Mr. R. A. Dhyani

For Appellant: Shri S. C. Tiwari & Ms. NavyaFor Respondent: Mr. R. A. Dhyani
Section 143(3)Section 263

…formed that show cause notice was not issued to the assessee, and the order was passed on the basis of facts and material available on record. Further, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT v/s Amitabh Bachchan 384 ITR 200 (SC), wherein it was held that Section 263 does not require any specific show cause notice and the Ld. CIT(E) is free to exercise his jurisdiction on consideration of the relevant facts. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed before us. Admittedly, Ld. PCIT proceeded to issue the order u/s 263 of the Act on the bas…

Dlf Home Developers Limited, New Delhi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-1, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2585/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Dlf Home Developers Limited, Vs Pr.Cit, 9Th Floor, Dlf Centre, Sansad Delhi-1, Marg, New Delhi-110001. New Delhi Pan-Aaccd0037H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.S.Singhvi, Ca & Shri Satyajeet Goel, Ca Respondent By Shri Surender Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2025

Section 143(3)Section 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. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Amitabh Bachchan 59. 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…

Radial International Mining Services Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT (Central), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1651/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 22Section 263

…of the assessee or any other person.” 10. As regards to the issue that the PCIT had traveled beyond the domain of show-cause notice under section 263 of the Act, we take guidance from order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amitabh Bachchan [2016] 384 ITR 200 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that there is nothing in section 263 of the Act to make the Commissioner confine himself to the terms of show-cause notice, and further that power of revision under section 263 of the Act is not contingent on giving of a show-cause notice. Considering this well settled position, we find no merit on this…

Infobeans Technologies Limited, Indore, M.P vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Indore - 1, Indore, M.P

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed being devoid of

ITA 371/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: S/Sh.SN Agrawal & Ritesh Jain, ARs
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 154Section 263

…rendered in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83/109 Taxman 66, the order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 and CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan [2016] 69 taxmann.com 170/240 Taxman 221/384 ITR 200 (SC) relevant extracts of which have been quoted by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in paragraphs 4 2 and 4.3 of its order, has arrived at a conclusion that as the Assessing Officer has passed the order of assessment without making a proper enquiry and without applying his mind to the return and the documents filed by the assessee, as such the…

Diamond Hosiery Mills Private Limited, Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ward -7(1), Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 363/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपीलसं . / ITA No.363 /Chd/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Diamond Hosiery Mills Private बनाम The ITO Limited Ward-7(1), 620/8, Kundan Puri, Civil Lines, Ludhiana Ludhiana स्थायीलेखासं./PAN NO: AABCD7485Q अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A राजस्वकी ओर से / Revenue by : Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date of Hearing : 20/01/202

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE "ी राजपाल यादव, उपा"" एवं "ी कृणव" सहाय, लेखा सद" BEFORE: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV, VP &SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No.363 /Chd/ 2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 बनाम Diamond Hosiery Mills Private The ITO Limited Ward-7(1), 620/8, Kundan Puri, Civil Lines, Ludhiana Ludhiana "ायीलेखासं./PAN NO: AABCD7485Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A राज"की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT,…

Sbs Biotech Unit II, Sirmour vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 413/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Pal Garg, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 801CSection 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “बी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE "ी िव"म "सह यादव, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी परेश म. जोशी, "याियक सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM &SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 413/Chd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 बनाम SBS Biotech Unit II The Pr. CIT-1 Nahan road Mauza Rampur Chandigarh Jattan, Kala Amb, Himachal Pradesh-173030 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABOFS6830P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ajay Jain, C.A राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri…

Smt. Teena Garg, Chandigarh vs. PCIT, Panchkula

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 466/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Feb 2025AY 2015-16
For Respondent: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 263

…case of LOIL Continental Foods Ltd. Vs. PCIT in ITA No. 577/Chd/2017 (Chd-Trib) & in particular following extract. The Id. CIT made reference to the Explanation-! to Section 263 and also decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Amitabhachan, 384 ITR 200. It H pertinent to note that Explanation-2 of section 263(1) would help the Id. Commissioner to take cognizance under section 263 of the Act, if no inquiry was conducted by the AO before finalizing the assessment order. No doubt the assessment orders are very brief, and did not have elaborate discussion on these issues, but it is pertinent to bea…

Mohammad Osman Mohammaf Haroonmotiwala, Auranganbad vs. PCIT- Nashik 1, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1133/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69Section 69B

…being erroneous, prejudice has been caused to the interest of the revenue, exist. An order of assessment passed by an Assessing Officer, therefore, it should not be interfered with only because another view is possible.” 13. In CIT Vs. Amitabh Bachhan (2016) 384 ITR 200 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that so long as the view taken by the Assessing Officer is a possible view it ought not to be interfered with by the Commissioner merely on the ground that there is another possible view of the matter. 14. The Finance Act, 2015 has inserted Explanation 2 w.e.f. 01.06.2015 and CBDT in Circular No. 19 of 2015,…

Padmavati Realities, Nagpur vs. PCIT - Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Nagpur

In the result, ITA.No.251/NAG

ITA 255/NAG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

For Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148(2)Section 151Section 34

…nto the matter beyond the issue noted in the show cause notice(s) dated 09.03.2024 to the assessees, 9 ITA.Nos.251 254 252 253 & 255 NAG 2024 which is not sustainable in law as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan [2016] 384 ITR 200 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dismissing the appeal of the Revenue held that – where the show cause notice u/sec.263 of the Act suggested only two issues but the order u/sec.263 of the Act directed the learned Assessing Officer to make enquiry and examine the two issues and a third issue, cannot form the basis for revision of asses…

Padmavati Realities, Nagpur vs. PCIT - Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Nagpur

In the result, ITA.No.251/NAG

ITA 254/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

For Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148(2)Section 151Section 34

…nto the matter beyond the issue noted in the show cause notice(s) dated 09.03.2024 to the assessees, 9 ITA.Nos.251 254 252 253 & 255 NAG 2024 which is not sustainable in law as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan [2016] 384 ITR 200 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dismissing the appeal of the Revenue held that – where the show cause notice u/sec.263 of the Act suggested only two issues but the order u/sec.263 of the Act directed the learned Assessing Officer to make enquiry and examine the two issues and a third issue, cannot form the basis for revision of asses…

Neel Infratech, Nagpur vs. PCIT - Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Nagpur

In the result, ITA.No.251/NAG

ITA 253/NAG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

For Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148(2)Section 151Section 34

…nto the matter beyond the issue noted in the show cause notice(s) dated 09.03.2024 to the assessees, 9 ITA.Nos.251 254 252 253 & 255 NAG 2024 which is not sustainable in law as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan [2016] 384 ITR 200 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dismissing the appeal of the Revenue held that – where the show cause notice u/sec.263 of the Act suggested only two issues but the order u/sec.263 of the Act directed the learned Assessing Officer to make enquiry and examine the two issues and a third issue, cannot form the basis for revision of asses…

Neel Infratech, Nagpur vs. PCIT - Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Nagpur

In the result, ITA.No.251/NAG

ITA 252/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

For Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148(2)Section 151Section 34

…nto the matter beyond the issue noted in the show cause notice(s) dated 09.03.2024 to the assessees, 9 ITA.Nos.251 254 252 253 & 255 NAG 2024 which is not sustainable in law as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan [2016] 384 ITR 200 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dismissing the appeal of the Revenue held that – where the show cause notice u/sec.263 of the Act suggested only two issues but the order u/sec.263 of the Act directed the learned Assessing Officer to make enquiry and examine the two issues and a third issue, cannot form the basis for revision of asses…

Neel Infratech, Nagpur vs. PCIT - Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur-1, Nagpur

In the result, ITA.No.251/NAG

ITA 251/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

For Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148(2)Section 151Section 34

…nto the matter beyond the issue noted in the show cause notice(s) dated 09.03.2024 to the assessees, 9 ITA.Nos.251 254 252 253 & 255 NAG 2024 which is not sustainable in law as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan [2016] 384 ITR 200 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dismissing the appeal of the Revenue held that – where the show cause notice u/sec.263 of the Act suggested only two issues but the order u/sec.263 of the Act directed the learned Assessing Officer to make enquiry and examine the two issues and a third issue, cannot form the basis for revision of asses…

M/S Ehealthsystem Heaith-Care Ltd., Pune vs. PCIT-1, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 944/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.944/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S.Ehealthsystem Health- V The Pr.Cit-1, Care Ltd., S Pune. 1073, Bhosatemostique, Opposite Symbiosis, Gokhate Road, Model Colony, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aadcn5780C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pratik Sandbhor - Ar Revenue By Mr.Ajaykumar Keshari, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 20/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/01/2025 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, Passed Under

Section 133(6)Section 263

…Assessee is not applicable in this case. Ld.AR also pleaded that specific show cause invoking explanation was not issued. In this context, we had during the hearing confronted the ld.AR decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Amitabh Bachchan 384 ITR 200 (SC) where in Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para 11 held as under : Quote, “11. 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 (Sect…

Mikuni India Private Limited, Alwar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, PCIT

12. In view of the above discussion, we find merit in this appeal, when the assessment order dated 27

ITA 745/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: passing the impugned order, Learned PCIT issued notice to the assessee, as Learned PCIT found that the Assessing Officer, while framing the above said assessment and the making addition, did not initiate penalty proceedings 270A of the Act. Learned PCIT was of the view that penalty proceedings were to be initiated under the said provision on account of misreporting of income, which came to be added by the Assessing Officer to the total income of the assessee company. It being a Transfer Pri

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Agarwal, C.A. (Through V.C.) &For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 194C(5)Section 263Section 270ASection 92CSection 94C

…n of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Eicher Ltd. [294 ITR 310].  Copy of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar [335 ITR 83].  Copy of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan [384 ITR 200].  Copy of decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. D.P. Karai [266 ITR 113].  Copy of decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers [259 ITR 502]  Copy of decision of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India Limited [388 ITR 81].  Copy of decision of Hon'ble…

Nipro Medical Inda Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 531/HYD/2024[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Kishore Phadke, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)

…part of the reason of the show cause notice issued qua section 263 of the Act. Further, no opportunity of being heard was provided to the assessee qua such other ground. Relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Amitabh Bachchan, 384 ITR 200 (2016), the Ld. AR submitted that, the Ld. PCIT should have given proper opportunity before deciding on other grounds. Therefore, the Ld. AR prayed before the bench to quash the order of Ld. PCIT. ITA No.531/Hyd/2024 9 6. With regard to ground nos.3 to 5, the Ld. AR submitted that, MOU was entered on 30.03.2015 i.e. in A.Y. 2015-16. The content…

A.B. Sugars Limited, Punjab vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 300/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80ISection 92C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE "ी िव"म िसंह यादव, लेखा सद" एवं "ी परेश म. जोशी, "ाियक सद" BEFORE: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM & SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 300/Chd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 A.B. Sugars Limited बनाम The Pr. CIT Dasuya H.O, Hoshiarpur Chandigarh-1 Punjab, India, 144205 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCG3045M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 299/Chd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 A.B. Sugars Limited बनाम The Pr. CIT…

A.B. Sugars Limited, Punjab vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 299/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80ISection 92C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE "ी िव"म िसंह यादव, लेखा सद" एवं "ी परेश म. जोशी, "ाियक सद" BEFORE: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM & SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 300/Chd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 A.B. Sugars Limited बनाम The Pr. CIT Dasuya H.O, Hoshiarpur Chandigarh-1 Punjab, India, 144205 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCG3045M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 299/Chd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 A.B. Sugars Limited बनाम The Pr. CIT…