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 366,339 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

State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 2093/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 80I

…o adequate inquiry. Thus, this is not a case of no inquiry, warranting order under section 263 of the Act. Thus, this objection on the part of the Revenue, is also not sustainable. and finally vide para 12, following the decision of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan, 384 ITR 200 held that it is a well settled law that the jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act can be assumed only when it is a case of lack of enquiry and not want of enquiry. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court finally held in para 12 as under:- 12. In the present facts, the Assessing Officer was satisfied, consequent to making an enquiry and examining the evidence pro…

M/S State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamilnadu Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6 (2), Chennai

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

ITA 1312/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 80I

…o adequate inquiry. Thus, this is not a case of no inquiry, warranting order under section 263 of the Act. Thus, this objection on the part of the Revenue, is also not sustainable. and finally vide para 12, following the decision of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan, 384 ITR 200 held that it is a well settled law that the jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act can be assumed only when it is a case of lack of enquiry and not want of enquiry. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court finally held in para 12 as under:- 12. In the present facts, the Assessing Officer was satisfied, consequent to making an enquiry and examining the evidence pro…

M/S State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamilnadu Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6 (2), Chennai

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

ITA 1311/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 80I

…o adequate inquiry. Thus, this is not a case of no inquiry, warranting order under section 263 of the Act. Thus, this objection on the part of the Revenue, is also not sustainable. and finally vide para 12, following the decision of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan, 384 ITR 200 held that it is a well settled law that the jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act can be assumed only when it is a case of lack of enquiry and not want of enquiry. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court finally held in para 12 as under:- 12. In the present facts, the Assessing Officer was satisfied, consequent to making an enquiry and examining the evidence pro…

M/S Fortune Metaliks Limited, Ludhiana vs. Pr.CIT(Central), Ludhiana

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 82/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR Khanna
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ ‘‘ए’, च"डीगढ़ च"डीगढ़ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ च"डीगढ़ च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ ITA No. 82/CHD/2021 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / A.Y : 2016-17 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" M/s Fortune Metaliks Limited, The Pr.CIT (Central), बनाम Opp. Circuit House, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana. VS Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN /TAN No: AABCF3202D अप…

Icici Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT -2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result we hold that the learned principal

ITA 737/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Icici Bank Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax-2(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 5 Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (East), Room No.552, Mumbai-400 051 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H Appellant By : Ms Arati Vissanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2022

For Appellant: Ms Arati Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)Section 263(2)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ICICI Bank Limited The Dy. Commissioner of ICICI Bank Towers, Income-tax-2(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 5 th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (East), Room No.552, Mumbai-400 051 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAACI1195H Appellant by : Ms Arati Vissanji, AR Respondent by : Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, CIT DR Date of hearing: 13.01.2022 Date of pronouncement : 08.03.2022 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. This appeal is filed by ICICI Bank Ltd (The appellant/ ass…

Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt. Ltd, Jharsuguda vs. Principal CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 195/CTK/2019[204-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

…terests of the revenue - Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tare Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88ITR 323 (SC)." [Emphasis Supplied] • The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT, Mumbai v. Amitabh Bachchan reported in [2016] 384 ITR 200 (SC) has held that: 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 77 ITA Nos.193-195/CTK/2019 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 revisiona1 pow…

M/S- Sbep-Gril(Joint Venture), Jharsuguda vs. Principal CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 194/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

…terests of the revenue - Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tare Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88ITR 323 (SC)." [Emphasis Supplied] • The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT, Mumbai v. Amitabh Bachchan reported in [2016] 384 ITR 200 (SC) has held that: 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 77 ITA Nos.193-195/CTK/2019 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 revisiona1 pow…

M/S- Rawat Balaji (Joint Venture), Jharsuguda vs. Prilncipal, CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 193/CTK/2019[204-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

…terests of the revenue - Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tare Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88ITR 323 (SC)." [Emphasis Supplied] • The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT, Mumbai v. Amitabh Bachchan reported in [2016] 384 ITR 200 (SC) has held that: 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 77 ITA Nos.193-195/CTK/2019 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 revisiona1 pow…

Vikas Oil Products, Dausa vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 28/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 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…

Om Industries, Dausa vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur, Jiapur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 27/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 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…

Jr Industries, Dausa vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 26/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 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…

Reliance Life Sciences P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-8, Mumbai

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 533/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.533/Mum/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.534/Mum/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Reliance Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. Pr. Cit - 8 Dhirubhai Ambani Life Sciences Centre, Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, बिाम/ R-282, Ttc Area Of Midc Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Thane Belapur Road, Rabale, Navi Mumbai-400 701 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcr-7594-L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Nimesh Vora-Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Anand Mohan-Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 07/09/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 05/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 As Per The Provisions Of Section 263 Of Income Tax Act, 1961, The Revenue Authorities Namely Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax / Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Vested With The Supervisory Powers Of Suo-Moto Revision Of Any Order Passed By The Assessing Officer [Ao]. For The Said Purpose, The Appropriate Authority May Call For & Examine

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 263

…1 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “के” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय श्री पवन कुमार गडाले, न्याययक सदस्य एवं माननीय श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल ,लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.533/Mum/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.534/Mum/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Reliance Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. Pr. CIT - 8 Dhirubhai Ambani Life Sciences Centre, Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, बिाम/ R-282,…

Kamlesh Jain & Sons HUF, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-3(2), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 26/RPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

…he obligation to provide opportunity is inbuilt in the provision of section 263 itself and is a mandatory requirement. Reliance was placed on the decisions of : - Smt. Shardaben B. Patel vs. Pr. CIT (2020), 180 ITD 328 (Ahd.) - CIT vs. Amitab Bachchan (2016) 384 ITR 200 (SC) - Venkat Naicken Trust vs. ITO (2000) 242 ITR 141 (Mad) 8. To expound the factual position, it was also pointed out that notice dated 10.03.2021 calling for hearing on 15.03.2021 was eventually signed by the PCIT on 15.03.2021 i.e. on the date of hearing fixed in this regard. Interestingly, notice was signed at 1.49 P.M. whereas the hearing…

R.S.Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT- .5, Mumbai

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

ITA 3418/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () Assessment Year: 2015-16 R.S. Diamonds Private Limited, Principle Commissioner Of Income 1402, A Wing, Naman Midtown, Dr. Vs. Tax, Room No. 501, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Ambedkar Nagar, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinston West, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadcr 2142 J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ajay Kumar &
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 92B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2015-16 R.S. Diamonds Private Limited, Principle Commissioner of Income 1402, A Wing, Naman Midtown, Dr. Vs. Tax, Room No. 501, 5th floor, Aayakar Ambedkar Nagar, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinston West, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AADCR 2142 J Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Madhur Agrawal, AR Revenue by : Mr. Ajay Kumar & Mr. Bharat Andhale, DRs Date of Hearing : 07/06/2021 Date of pronouncement : 03/09/2021 ORDER…

Reliance Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT (PCIT)-3, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 578/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 263

…1 M/s Reliance Industries Limited Assessment Year: 2011-12 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “डी” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय श्री महावीर स िंह, उपाध्यक्ष एवुं माननीय श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल ,लेखा दस्य के मक्ष। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No. 578/Mum/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/s Reliance Industries Ltd. Pr. CIT- Mumbai-3 3rd Floor, Maker Chamber-IV बिाम/ R. No. 612, 6th floor 222, Nariman Point, Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 0…

Shri Mahaveer Charitable Trust, Allahabad vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Lucknow

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

ITA 190/ALLD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad27 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Mahaveer Charitable V. Commissioner Of Income Tax Trust (Exemption), Lucknow 46, Rajendra Nagar Balua Ghat, Allahabad Tan/Pan: Aahts9123K (Respondent) Appellant By: Mr. Pawan Jaiswal, C.A. Respondent By: Mr. Shantanu Dhamija, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.08.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr. Pawan Jaiswal, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. Shantanu Dhamija, CIT DR
Section 11Section 115Section 115BSection 12ASection 13(7)Section 143(3)Section 263

…pugned order was passed on the same date. Therefore, the impugned order was passed in a haste without giving an appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. He has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachhan 384 ITR 200 and submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that opportunity of hearing prior to finalization of order under section 263 is a condition precedent. Therefore, not granting of appropriate opportunity of hearing amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. Thus, the learned AR has pleaded that the impugned order may be set as…

M/S Radhishwari Devlopers P Ltd, Indore vs. Pr CIT -2 Indore, Indore

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

ITA 493/IND/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Jul 2021

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…has been repaid in the subsequent years after paying regular interest and deducting tax M/s. Radheshwari Developers Pvt. Ltd. at source on the same. 12. Ld. Senior counsel for the assessee also submitted that the case law of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan (2016) 384 ITR 200 (SC) relied on by the Ld. Pr. CIT in the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act is distinguishable, as the facts in this case are that the assessee had filed revised return claiming additional expenses. When the Ld. Assessing Officer enquired about these additional expenses the assessee withdrew this claim and the Ld. Assessing Officer accepted th…

Rutvi Oilfields Services Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. Pr. CIT, Gurgaon

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3291/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

…n the share was not called for and also no notice under Section 133(6) of the Act was issued. The Ld. DR relied upon the following decisions: i. Denial Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (Appeal No. 2396/Del/2017 order dated 29.11.2017) ii. CIT vs. Amithabh Bachchan 384 ITR 200 (SC) order dated 11.05.2016 iii. Surya Jyoti Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT (I.T.A. No.2158/DEL/2017) ITAT Delhi order dated 08.01.2018 iv. Shankar Tradex Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT (ITA No. 2999/Del/2017 for A.Y. 2007-08 order dated 16.04.2018) v. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT [2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC)/[2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC)/[2000] 159 CTR 1 (SC) vi. R…

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. Pr.CIT, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4/JPR/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 04/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shree Cement Limited, Cuke Pr.Cit, Vs. Bangur Nagar, Post Box No. 33, Udaipur. Beawar. Pan No.: Aaccs 8796 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Dilip Desai (Ca) Shri Vijay Shah (Ca) Shri Mohit Choudhary (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit, Udaipur Dated 03.02.2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – Udaipur, (Here- In- After Referred To As Ld. Pr. Cit) Was Not Justified In Initiating Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Since The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Desai (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 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 [2016J 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…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Cisco Systems

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

ITA/27/2019HC Karnataka18 Jun 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 260ASection 263Section 32

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY ITA NO.27/2019 BETWEEN 1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT (A), 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU 560 095. 2. THE ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SP. RANGE -2 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU 560 095. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S CISCO SYSTEMS CAPITAL (INDIA) PVT.…