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 366,314 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 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

Ametek Buildtech India Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT - 1, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1317/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI G.S PANNU, HON’BLE (President), SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: None

Section 133(6)Section 263

…nsufficient enquiry. Thus, the ld. PCIT was quite justified and correct in alleging the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue by following the preposition rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Amitabh Bachhan 384 ITR 200 (SC). We are unable to see any valid reason to interfere with the revisionary action and order of the ld. PCIT passed u/s. 263 of the Act and hence, we uphold the same. Accordingly, grounds of assessee being devoid of merits are dismissed. 11. In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 17.10.2023 (G.…

Hi-Shine Inks Pvt. Ltd., Na vs. Arivs.the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 358/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.358/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Hi-Shine Inks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit, 208, Gidc Estate, Antalia, Valsad Tal: Gandevi, Dist: Navsari – 396325. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacu2926J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, Ca Respondent By Shri S. M. Keshkamat, Cit(Dr) 14/09/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 16/10/2023

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.358/SRT/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Hi-Shine Inks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The PCIT, 208, GIDC Estate, Antalia, Valsad Tal: Gandevi, Dist: Navsari – 396325. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAACU2926J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, CA Respondent by Shri S. M. Keshkamat, CIT(DR) 14/09/2023 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 16/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: By way of this appeal, the assessee has challenged the correc…

Ashish Niranjan Shah, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax -4, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 697/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.697/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ashish Niranjan Shah, The Pr.Cit-4, Pune. 39, Mantri Court, Dr.Ambedkar V Road, Next To Rto, Sangam, S Pune – 411001. Pan: Aidps 7682 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel, Irs – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Pune Dated26.03.2019 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Learned Pr. Cit- 4, Pune Erred In Law & On Facts In Treating The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Being Erroneous & Thereby Prejudicial To The Revenue U/S 263 Without Appreciating That, The Learned Ao Has Allowed Appellant'S Claim Of Business Loss Amounting To Rs.10,20,14,068/- Incurred On Account Of Default In Payment By Nsel, With Due Application Of Mind & Verification. The Learned Pr. Cit Erred In Holding That, Ao Has Not Carried Out Any Enquiry With Respect To Business Loss Claimed By The Appellant & Not Applied His Ashish Niranjan Shah [A]

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43(5)

…nabove, the High Court has committed a very serious error in setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner passed in exercise of powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.” 9.2 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs.Amitabh Bachchan [2016] 384 ITR 200 (SC) has held as under : Quote“Making a claim which would prima facie disclose that the expenses in respect of which deduction has been claimed has been incurred and thereafter abandoning/withdrawing the same gives rise to the necessity of further enquiry in the interest of the Revenue. The notice issued under Section 69-C of the Act could not ha…

Shri Hemrajsinh Kiransinh Rathod, Dadra & Nagar Haveli vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 239/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.239/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Hearing) Hemrajsinh Kiransinh Rathod, Vs. The Pcit, Krishna Petroleum, Iocl Dealer, Valsad Near Jalaram Temple, Waghdhara Road, Village Dadra - 396193, Ut Of Dadra & Nagar Haveli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aihpr4957N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) 14/08/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2023

Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.239/SRT/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Hearing) Hemrajsinh Kiransinh Rathod, Vs. The PCIT, Krishna Petroleum, IOCL Dealer, Valsad Near Jalaram Temple, Waghdhara Road, Village Dadra - 396193, UT of Dadra & Nagar Haveli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AIHPR4957N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Respondent by Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT(DR) 14/08/2023 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 26/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: By way…

Kunj Bihari Dawa Dukan, Ambikapur, Surguja vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 122/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.122/Rpr/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Kunj Bihari Dawa Dukan Pcit Opp. Govt. Distt. Hospital, Raipur - 1 Bilaspur Road Ambikapur, Surguju Chhattisgarh – 497 001

For Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…ion order "after giving assessee an opportunity of being heard. Before deciding an issue, providing of opportunity to assessee is essential. Absence of opportunity vitiates the validity of revision order. Reliance on: :: 7 :: i) CIT vs Amitabh Bachchan (2016) 384 ITR 200, 211 & 212 (SC) ii) Smt. Shardaben B. Patel vs Pr. CIT (2020) 180 ITD 328 (Ahd.) relevant finding at (para no. 6.5 & 6.6 & para no. 6.7). Held vide para no. 6.7 that the matter cannot be set aside to the file of Pr. CIT. 11. On the issue of admissibility of payment of interest to partners of Rs. 5,07,115/-, no direction given by Ld. Pr. CIT to ve…

Vishal Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed

ITA 878/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vishal Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., The Pcit-5, 11Th Floor, The Plaza, Hughes Room No. 515, Road, 55, Gamdevi, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400007. Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacv 2799 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Hariom TulsiyanFor Respondent: Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vishal Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., The PCIT-5, 11th Floor, The Plaza, Hughes Room No. 515, Road, 55, Gamdevi, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400007. Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AAACV 2799 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Hariom Tulsiyan Revenue by : Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 24/08/2023 & 04/09/2023 Date of pronouncement : 06/09/2023 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal has been preferred by the asses…

Au Small Finance Bank Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-1

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 203/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT

Section 115JSection 263Section 35ASection 36(1)(viia)

…relied upon the following case laws to support the contentions so raised: 1. CIT vs Bhawal Synthetics (India), Udiapur [2017 81 Taxmann.com 478 (Raj). 2. CIT, Nagpur vs Ballarpur Industries Ld. [2017] 85 taxmann.com 10 (Bom.) 3. CIT vs Amitabh Bachhan [2016] 69 Taxmann.com 170 (SC) 4. CIT vs Jawahar Bhattacharjee [2012] 24 Taxmann.com 215 (Guj.) 5. Rajmandir Estates (P) Ltd.vs PrCIT, Kolkata [2016] 70 taxmann.com 124 (Calcutta) 6. PV Sreenijin vs CIT [2014] 47 Taxmann.com 61 (Kerala) 7. Kirtidevi S. Tejwani vs Pr.CIT [2020] 116 Taxmann.com 965 (Mumbai) 8. Vedanta Ltd. vs CIT[2021] 124 Taxmann.com 435 (Bom.) 9. P…

Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra)Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT -8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1308/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Hiten ChandeFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das

Section 253Section 263

…o the assessee to rebut the same. Thus, it is contrary to the provisions of section 263 of the Act, which specifically requires the grant of opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s Amitabh Bachchan, [2016] 384 ITR 200 (SC) observed as under:- “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.” 12. Further, as per…

M/S Sukhwani Promotors and Builders, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Central), Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 301/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.301/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S.Sukhwani Promoters & The Principal Builders, Vs Commissioner Of Income 208/2A, Near Swaminathan Tax, (Central), Pune. Clinic, Station Road, Pimpri, Pune – 411018. Pan: Abrfs 1253 P Assessee/ Appellant Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Jitendra Jain – Ar Revenue By Shri Sardar Singh Meena – Dr Date Of Hearing 16/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax(Central), Pune Dated 24.03.2022 Under Section 263 Of The Act For A.Y.2017-18. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : “1 & 2. Pcit Erred In Passing The Order U/S 263 Of The Act Which Is Bad In Law, Illegal, Ultra-Virus, In Excess Of And/Or In Want Of Jurisdiction & Otherwise Void. M/S.Sukhwani Promoters & Builders [A]

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 23Section 263Section 40

…pugned order on this score and delete the addition of Rs. 1.47 crore sustained in the first appeal.” Unquote 5.1 Thus, there is no doubt that there were two views on this impugned issue. 5.2 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 5 M/s.Sukhwani Promoters and Builders [A] 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 exerci…

Rajkumar Impex Private Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT - 4, Chenai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 631/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jun 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy (CIT) – Ld.DR

Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी महावीर िसंह, उपा12 एवं माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार अ6वाल ,लेखा सद9 के सम2। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ITA No.631/Chny/2022 (िनधाBरणवषB / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/s. Rajkumar Impex Pvt. Limited PCIT बनाम/ 93/119, 4th floor, St. Mary’s Road, Chennai-4. Vs. Abhiramapuram,Chennai-600 018. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAACR-3577-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee by : Shri B. Ramakrishnan (FCA) & Shri…

Shri.Viswanatha Manoj Kumar, Kochi vs. The Pr.CIT, Kochi

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

ITA 151/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkeyviswanatha Manoj Kumar Pr. Commissioner Of 39/421, Temple Road Income Tax - 1 Kadavanthara Vs. C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Ernakulam 682020 Kochi 682018 [Pan:Adwpm1619G] [Appellant] [Respondent] Appellant By: Shri K.M.V. Pandalai, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Prasanth V.K., Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri K.M.V. Pandalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prasanth V.K., CIT-DR

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

…the Bench during the hearing, is not a jurisdictional notice. As explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court per a series of decisions, viz. Gita Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1970] 76 ITR 496 (SC); CIT v. Electro House [1971] 82 ITR 824 (SC); CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan [2016] 384 ITR 200 (SC), that a show cause notice is not a concomitant of the proceedings u/s. 263. The whole premise of a notice is to put the assessee to notice of the proceedings under section 263 having been initiated against it and, two, afford an opportunity of hearing thereto. Nothing more and, nothing less. It may be relevant to quote from the decision in A…

Hubergroup India Private Limited, Vapi vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 133/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.133/Srt/2022 (Ay 2018-19) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Hubergroup India Pvt. Ltd. Principal Commissioner Of Plot No.808/E, Phase-Ii, Income Tax, Valsad, Room Vs Gidc, Vapi-396195 No.301, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax Pan No. Aaach 7063 F Office, Palak Arcade, Pali Hill, Santi Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-396001 ""थ" /Respondent अपीलाथ"/Appellant

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 254(1)Section 263Section 80ISection 92C

…ted (2013) 32 taxmann.com 356 (Guj),  Malabar Industries Co Ltd. Vs CIT 243 ITR 83 SC/109 Taxman 66 SC,  Add CIT Vs Mukur Corporation (1978) 111 ITR 312 (Guj),  Deniel Marchant (P) Ltd Vs ITO (2018) 95 taxmann.com 366 (SC),  CIT Vs Amitabh Bachchan (2016) 384 ITR 200 SC / 69 taxmann.com 170 (SC). 14. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the order of lower authorities carefully. We have also deliberated on various case laws relied by ld AR for the assessee. There is no dispute that the ae while filing return of income, in its report inForm3CEB reported various 17 Hubergroup Indi…

Sultan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Sundarpada, Bhubaneswar vs. Pr. CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 29/CTK/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack26 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Ramit Kocharassessment Year : 2015-16 Sultan Enterprises Pvt Ltd., Sultan Enterprises Pvt Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar-1 At:Plot No.161, Azad Nagar, At:Plot No.161, Azad Nagar, Sundarpada, Bhubaneswar. Sundarpada, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aascs 1016 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Ray, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AND RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sultan Enterprises Pvt Ltd., Sultan Enterprises Pvt Ltd., Vs. Pr. CIT, Bhubaneswar Pr. CIT, Bhubaneswar-1 At:Plot No.161, Azad Nagar, At:Plot No.161, Azad Nagar, Sundarpada, Bhubaneswar. Sundarpada, Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No. PAN/GIR No.AASCS 1016 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by Assessee by : Shri Sidh…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax-2(1)Bhilai, Bhilai(Cg) vs. M/S Sms Shivnath Infrasstructure Pvt Ltd., Durg, Durg(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 87/BIL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.87/Rpr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Acit-2(1), Bhilai Vs M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.107/Rpr/2016 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Vs Pr.Cit-2, Raipur Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, Adv. & MukeshFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 36Section 80ISection 80l

…e ITAT has erred in holding that in the revision proceedings the CIT cannot travel beyond the reasons given by him for revision in the show cause notice without appreciating the ratio laid down by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan (384 ITR 200) (2016) wherein it was clearly held by the Apex Court that there is nothing in Section 263 to make the CIT confine himself to the terms of show cause notice? 23. Hon’ble Mumbai High Court on the aforesaid question of law proposed by the revenue, has decide the issue after deliberating upon a judgment of Hon’ble Apex court in the Case of CIT Vs Am…

M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Durg(Cg) vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 107/BIL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, Adv. & MukeshFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 36Section 80ISection 80l

Madaan Associates, New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT Delhi-15, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 974/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHIBENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Yogesh Kumar US, Judicial Member ITA No.974/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Madaan Associates, Vs. Pr. CIT, B-09/901, ITL Twin Towers, Delhi-15, Pitampura, Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi New Delhi-110034 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ABAFM4820D Assessee by : Ms. Rano Jain, Adv Ms. Mansi Jain, CA Revenue by : Ms. Sarita Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 06.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 02.03.2023 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against…

Hitkari and Swaraj Enterprises Private Limited, Barmer vs. Pr. CIT-1, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 61/JODH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

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

…as per the provisions of Section 14A of the Act, the said assessment order will be an erroneous one and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, as envisaged under the provisions of Section 263 of the Act. 70. In the case of CIT vs Amitabh Bachchan (2016) 384 ITR 200 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that what Section 263 prescribes is an opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and not a notice to show cause. The two are distinct since in a show cause notice, the grounds on which the AO is to proceed are disclosed in the notice while an opportunity of hearing is done before taking a decision in the mat…

Atul Kumar Anchalia, Jaora vs. PCIT-1, Indore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 63/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Dafaria, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 263

…d in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83/109 Taxman.com 66, the order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 and CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan [2016] 69 taxmann.com 170/240 Taxmann 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…

Ramanbhai Bholidas Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 84/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT/D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2015-16 Shri Ramanbhai The Principal Bholidas Patel Commissioner of 3, Popular Park, Shree Vs Income Tax-3, Ghanshyam Park Ahmedabad Society, B/H Paraskunj Society, (Respondent) Nr. Ashwamegh, Bunglows, 132 Ft. Ring Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad PAN No:AEHPP8756M (Appellant) Appellant by : Ms. Nupur Shah, A.R. Respondent by : Shri James Kurian, CIT/D.R. Date of hearing : 28-09-2022 Date of pronouncement : 21-12-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KU…

Manoj Kumar Sharma, Jaipur vs. PCIT(Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 283/JPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A”JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.214 to 216/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years :2012-13, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Harish Jain cuke PCIT (Central), Vs. 2-PA-8, Vigyan Nagar, Jaipur. Kota-324005. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AEHPJ 4764 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 217 to 223/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years :2012-13 to 2018-1…