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.

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 200)

Amitanil Modi (HUF), Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 33, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.03/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Amitanil Modi (Huf) बिधम/ Pr.Cit-33 8Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan B-401, Subh Shanti Complex Vs. M.B.Road, Dhanukar Wadi Bkc, Bandra(E) Kandivali(W) Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 703 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahha5667G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajiv Harit, Cit(Dr) Assessee By: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/03/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29/03/2019 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -33, Mumbai In View Of Section 263 Of The I.T.Act, 1961 Relevant To The A.Y.2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - 1. “ The Hon.Pr..Cit Erred In Holding The Order Framed By The Ld.Ao U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The I.T.Act, 1961 On 07.12.2016, To Be Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & Accordingly The Assumption Of Jurisdiction By The Hon.Pr.Cit U/S 263 Of The I.T.Act, 1961 Was Not Valid & Justified By Law.

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Harit, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…n accordance with law, hence the order u/s 263 of the Act is liable to be set aside. In support of these contentions the Ld. AR for the assessee has placed reliance on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Nirav Mody, 390 ITR 292 (Bom), CIT vs Amitabh Bachchan, 384 ITR 200 (SC) and CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) and Maharashtra Engineering vs PCIT Kolhapur in ITA No.859/Pun/2018. On the other hand, the Ld. DR has refuted the said contention and argued that the provisions u/s 263 has rightly been invoked by the PCIT and in support of his contentions the Ld. DR has placed reliance on the decision of Chan…

Shri Ramji V. Joyshar, Valsad vs. The Pr. CIT, Valsad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 946/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.946/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Ramji V. Joyshar, Vs. The Pcit, Valsad. Kalpvruksh, Palli Hill-3, ‘E’ Road, Tithal Road, Valsad. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacy1854F (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Surji Chheda, Ar Revenue By : Shri O.P. Vaishnav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 10/05/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/05/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini:

For Appellant: Shri Surji Chheda, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Vaishnav, CIT(DR)

Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.946/AHD/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Ramji V. Joyshar, Vs. The PCIT, Valsad. Kalpvruksh, Palli Hill-3, ‘E’ Road, Tithal Road, Valsad. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAACY1854F (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Surji Chheda, AR Revenue by : Shri O.P. Vaishnav, CIT(DR) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 10/05/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 24/05/2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: By way of this appe…

Shri Shaligram Barod, Indore vs. Pr. CIT-1, Indore

ITA 625/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Shaligram Barod, Pr. Cit-I, Ah/29, Hig, Sukhliya Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Ahfpp4068H Appellant By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 54Section 54BSection 54FSection 54F(1)

…अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE MANISH BORAD,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND HON'BLE’ MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Shaligram Barod, Pr. CIT-I, AH/29, HIG, Sukhliya Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. AHFPP4068H Appellant by Shri S.N. Agrawal, CA Revenue by Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 12.04.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 30.04.2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M: By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income Tax…

Kailashchandra Khandelwal, Sendhwa vs. Pr. CIT -2, Indore

ITA 562/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Kailash Khandelwal Pr. Cit-2, Prop. M/S. Vikash Krishi Indore बनाम/ Seva Kendra, Bus Stand, Vs. Sendhwa, Barwani (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Acmpk2991E Appellant By Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Vijay Bansal, Nisha Lahoti, Ars Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 44A

…e made necessary enquiries or verification, which were required to verify the issue. 5. The excerpts from important judgment on the revisionary power of commissioner, on which the reliance is placed, are reproduce hereunder: 1. CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan (2006) 384 ITR 200(SC) 2. Toyota Motor Corpn. (2008) 174 Taxman 395 (Delhi) affirmed in (2008) 173 Taxman 458 (SC) 3. Jagdish Kumar Gulati (2004) 139 Taxman 369(All.) 4. Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. (2000) 109 Taxman 66 (SC) 5. Crompton Greaves Ltd. (2017) 82 Taxmann.com 246 (Mumbai –I.T.A.T. Bench C 6. CIT vs. Vallabhdasvithaldas –Gujarat High Court (2002) 253 ITR…

Satish Kumar Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-10, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 260/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263

…(1992) 198 ITR 611 (Ker) Malabar Industrial Co. - Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 243 ITR 83 -CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)] - CIT v Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR I (SC) - CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan: 384 ITR 200 (SC) -. CIT v. Hindustan Lever Ltd 343 ITR 161(Bom.) - CIT v . Vikas Polymers: 341 ITR 537 (Del.) - CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.: 332 ITR 167 (Del) -CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd: 323 ITR 206 (Born.) - Vimgi Investment (P) Limited: 290 ITR 505 (Del) - Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT: 263 ITR 437 (P&H) - CIT vs. Gabriel India Limited: 203 ITR 108…

Piramal Enterprise Limited (Formerly Known As Piramal Healthcare Limited), Mumbai vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 7, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the specific terms indicated above

ITA 2489/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…ocedural lapse, the matter should at best be remitted back to the Principal Commissioner for fresh adjudication, as the lapse is only a curable defect. It is then pointed out that, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Amitabh Bachhan [(2016) 384 ITR 200 (SC)], learned Commissioner is indeed free to exercise his jurisdiction on consideration of all the facts, as long an opportunity of hearing is provided to the assessee to contest facts on the basis of which learned Commissioner seeks to exercise his revisional power. It is submitted that this requirement is not satisfied on the facts of the pres…

M/S. Alokik Steels Pvt. Ltd Village Post-Patan, Tehsil-Kishangarh, District-Ajmer, Kishangarh vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 861/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Siddharth Ranka &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (CIT)

Section 115BSection 263Section 3Section 69A

…Alokik Steels Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer Vs. PCIT, Jaipur jurisdiction but on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. In this regard, useful reference can be drawn to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Amitabh Bachchan (2016) 384 ITR 200 wherein it was held as under: “9. Under the Act different shades of power have been conferred on different authorities to deal with orders of assessment passed by the primary authority. While Section 147 confers power on the Assessing Authority itself to proceed against income escaping assessment, Section 154 of the Act empowers such authority to…

M/S Sutures India Pvt Ltd vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result the substantial questions of law are

ITA/115/2010HC Karnataka13 Jan 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 260Section 260ASection 263Section 80HSection 80I

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY I.T.A. NO.115 OF 2010 BETWEEN: M/S. SUTURES INDIA PVT. LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. L.G. CHANDRASEKHAR NO.118, 3RD PHASE, 13TH CROSS PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BANGALORE-560058. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. M. LAVA, ADV.,) AND: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX BANGALORE-III, C.R. BUILDING QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.) - - - THIS I.T.A.…

Essar Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 6, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3759/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Vajresh Consultants Prcit 6, Ltd. (Earlier Known As Aayakar Bhavan, Essar Capital Ltd.), Mumbai - 400020 Vs. 40-B, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400 006 Pan: Aabce 7257R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. & Shri Hiten Chande, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263

…completely not enquired into by the Assessing Officer in the manner as stated above during the course of assessment proceedings. This clearly makes the order erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 4.2 CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan (2016) 384 ITR 200 (SO Para 19, 20 - The CIT took the view that notwithstanding the withdrawal of the claim by the assessee, in view of the earlier stand taken that the said expenses were incurred for security purposes of the assessee, the Assessing Officer ought to have proceeded with the matter as the assessee was following the cash system of accounting and the f…

Play Games 24 X 7 Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr. .CIT-(A) 13, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3910/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Dhamija

Section 263

…n. In the written submission, it has been submitted that the principle of natural justice should be followed and assessee must be given an opportunity of being heard. In this regard, following case laws have been referred :- i) CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan (2016) 384 ITR 200 (SC); ii) CIT v. Electro House (1971) 82 ITR 824 (SC); iii) CIT v. Ashish Rajpal (2010) 320 ITR 674 (Del.); iv) G.K. Kabra (211 ITR 336) (AP); v) Chandan Wood Products (217 ITR 834) (MP); and, vi) A. Kannan v. State of Tamil Nadu (201 ITR 205) (Mad.) Furthermore, it has been pleaded that when the learned Commissioner revises the order on an enti…

M/S. Alpha National Trading Co., [Formerly A.N. Trading Co.], Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 10, Kolkata

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

ITA 1007/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 263Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(2)

…e additional issues. This omission on the part of Ld. Pr. CIT i.e, not providing an opportunity of hearing on these additional issues was bad in law for violation of Natural Justice as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachan in 384 ITR 200 (SC) wherein it was held as under: “In fact, Section 263 has been understood not to require any specific show-cause notice to be served on the assessee. Rather, what is required under the said provision is an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The two requirements are different; the first would comprehend a prior notice detailing the specifi…

M/S. Jenious Clothing Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (OSD) Range-4(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1114/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 43B

…f the Act and the assessee was not put to notice on the applicability of this provision either in the show cause notice u/s.263 of the Act or during the proceedings u/s.263 of the Act. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amitabh Bachchan, 384 ITR 200 (SC) will not be applicable to the facts of the present case for the reason that in that case in the course of 263 proceedings, the assessee was put on notice on the issue which was part of the show cause notice issued u/s. 263 of the Act. As we have already Page 6 of 6 discussed, in the present case, no such notice was given by the Pr.CIT. Acco…