Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Bharat 42 Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa Aluminium Co. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 43B, Section 139, Section 143(1), Section 143(2), Section 148, Section 154.

CIT v. Bharat 42 Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa Aluminium Co. Ltd. (303 ITR 256)

Q: What is CIT v. Bharat 42 Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa Aluminium Co. Ltd. authority for?

An assessee can file a revised computation of income during ongoing assessment proceedings, even after the time limit for filing a revised return under section 139(5) has expired. This revised computation can be submitted without filing a revised return.

Q: How many judgments cite CIT v. Bharat 42 Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa Aluminium Co. Ltd.?

45 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Bharat 42 Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa Aluminium Co. Ltd. (303 ITR 256), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Bobst Bielefeld Gmbh, Germany vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6030/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 234Section 234ASection 270A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “I” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) SHRI C.V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. A.Y. Appellant Respondent Bobst Bielefeld GmbH, C/o. Gut No. 82, 124 to Asst. Commissioner of 6029/Mum/2025 2017-18 132, 136 & 195 (part) Income Tax, At & Post Village Kasar INT Tax Circle-1(3)(1), Amboli, Room No. 14, Ghotawade Road, A Wing, Pune, 3rd Floor, Mittal Court, 6030/Mum/2025 2018-19 Taluka Mulshi, Pune 22, Nariman Point, Maharashtra-412108 Mumbai-400021 [PAN: AAFCB9356E] For Assessee : Shri Siddesh Chaugule For Revenue : Shri Krishna…

Bobst Bielefeld Gmbh, Germany vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6029/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 234Section 234ASection 270A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “I” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) SHRI C.V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. A.Y. Appellant Respondent Bobst Bielefeld GmbH, C/o. Gut No. 82, 124 to Asst. Commissioner of 6029/Mum/2025 2017-18 132, 136 & 195 (part) Income Tax, At & Post Village Kasar INT Tax Circle-1(3)(1), Amboli, Room No. 14, Ghotawade Road, A Wing, Pune, 3rd Floor, Mittal Court, 6030/Mum/2025 2018-19 Taluka Mulshi, Pune 22, Nariman Point, Maharashtra-412108 Mumbai-400021 [PAN: AAFCB9356E] For Assessee : Shri Siddesh Chaugule For Revenue : Shri Krishna…

Nobel Biocare India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, 15(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6881/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Ms. Hinal Shah &For Respondent: Mr. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR

…India. 3.2 Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Bharat Alu CIT v. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. (303 ITR 256) minium Co. Ltd. (303 ITR 256), as well as on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT as on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in as on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. (349 ITR 336), v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. (349 ITR 336…

Nobel Biocare India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 15(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6880/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Ms. Hinal Shah &For Respondent: Mr. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR

…India. 3.2 Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Bharat Alu CIT v. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. (303 ITR 256) minium Co. Ltd. (303 ITR 256), as well as on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT as on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in as on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. (349 ITR 336), v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. (349 ITR 336…

Slr Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 544/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263

…r cannot be termed as erroneous. The powers under section 263 cannot be exercised merely because a different view is possible SC dismissed the SLP against 259 ITR 502 CIT Vs. Arvind Jewellery (266 ITR 101) St. In the case of CIT vs. Bharat Aluminum Co. Ltd. (303 ITR 256), the Hon'ble High 'Court of Delhi has held that for revision under section 263, the Commissioner of Income-tax has to be satisfied of two conditions viz. (i) the order of the AO sought to be revised is erroneous and (ii) It is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. If one of them is absent, he cannot invoke the provisions of section 263. Hon'b…

M/S. Chennai Business Tower Pvt. Ltd., Kanchipuram vs. PCIT-4, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1570/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1570/Chny/2025, धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 M/S. Chennai Business Tower Pcit-4, Private Limited (Formerly Known Vs Chennai. As Rmz Infinity (Chennai) Pvt. . Ltd), 110, Mount Poonamallee Road, Porur, Porur S.O. Kanchipuram – 600 116. [Pan:Aaacd-2287-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Raghupathy, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am:

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. R. Raghupathy, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 24Section 263

…e recorded by the CIT that the assessment order was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Similarly views has been held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bharat Aluminium :-7-: ITA. Nos:1570/Chny/2025 Company Limited 303 ITR 256. The same proposition has been echoed in a catena of other judgements passed by superior judicial authority. 9. The term “prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue” has been incorporated in the Act, through explanation-2 inserted by the Finance Act 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Thus, by way of a deeming provision, it has been statutorily mandated that…

DCIT, C-V, Ludhiana vs. M/S Hero Cycles Ltd., Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 588/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 588/Chd/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 The DCIT C-V, Ludhiana बनाम M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. Hero Nagar, G.T. Road Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACH4073P अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 473/Chd/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. Hero Nagar, G.T. Road Ludhiana बनाम The ACIT C-V, Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACH4073P

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Shri Ashish Aggarwal &For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…de to subsidiary company /sister concern, is disallowable. The assessee company had filed the letter for "correction of amount" disallowed in the Computation of taxable income. Reference may be made to following case law i) CIT Vs. Bharat Aluminium Co Limited 303 ITR 256 (Del) ii) Orissa Rural Housing Development Corporation Ltd. v. ACTT 343 ITR 316 (ORR) iii) M/s Andhra Pradesh Industrial Development Corporation Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1 (1). Hyderabad ITA 548/HYD/2017 dated 7.9.2017 Pages 431 to 438 The AO is bound to compute the correct income for assessment, irrespective of incor…

Asianet Satellite Communications Limited, Thiruvananthapuram vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram

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

ITA 475/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR

Section 40A(7)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JM ITA Nos. 474 & 475/Coch/2025 Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd. .......... Appellant 2A, 2nd Floor, Technopark Campus, Kariyavattom, Trivandrum. [PAN: AAECA 5548 E] vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle 1(1), Thiruvananthapuram. Appellant by: Shri Raghunathan S, Advocate Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 04.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 08.08.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM These appeals filed by the asse…

Asianet Satellite Communications Limited, Thiruvananthapuram vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram

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

ITA 474/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR

Section 40A(7)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JM ITA Nos. 474 & 475/Coch/2025 Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd. .......... Appellant 2A, 2nd Floor, Technopark Campus, Kariyavattom, Trivandrum. [PAN: AAECA 5548 E] vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle 1(1), Thiruvananthapuram. Appellant by: Shri Raghunathan S, Advocate Respondent by: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 04.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 08.08.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM These appeals filed by the asse…

M/S. Rmz Infinity (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd., Kanchipuram vs. PCIT-4, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 511/CHNY/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.511/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2009-10 M/S.Rmz Infinity(Chennai) Pvt. Ltd, The Principal Commissioner Of No.110, Mount Poonamallee Road, Income Tax-4, Porur, Porur S.O, Circle-1, Ltu, Kanchipuram Dist, Chennai Tamil Nadu-600 116. [Pan: Aaacd2287R]

For Appellant: Shri B.Ramakrishnan, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 263

…erein a positive finding has to be recorded by the CIT that the assessment order was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Similarly views has been held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bharat Aluminium Company Limited 303 ITR 256. The same proposition has been echoed in a catena of other judgements passed by superior judicial authority. 9.0 The term “prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue” has been incorporated in the Act, through explanation-2 inserted by the Finance Act 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Thus, by way of a deeming provision, it has been statutorily mandated tha…

M/S. Anabond Ltd., Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai-1

In the result, all the grounds appeal raised by the assesse are allowed

ITA 1625/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1625/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/S. Anabond Limited The Principal Commissioner Of Type-Ii, 36, Dr. V.S.I. Estate Income Tax-1 Tiruvanmiyur, Chennai Chennai-600041. [Pan: Aacca4158Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri B.Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024

For Appellant: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35Section 5Section 80I

…leg to stand on and deserves to be quashed. We accordingly cancel the order passed under section 263 of the Act and restore the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer…”. 4.3 We have also noted that in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Aluminium Co.Ltd. (303 ITR 256), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that for revision under section 263, the revisionary authority has to satisfy two conditions viz. (i) the order of the AO sought to be revised is erroneous and that (ii) It is also prejudicial to the interest of revenue. If one of them is absent, he cannot invoke the provisions of section 263. Again in the…

C.M. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- 2, Delhi

ITA 6202/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263

…O. 5701/DEL/2014, ITAT Delhi Bench. • Ram Kishan Dass vs. ITO 149 Taxman 55, ITAT Delhi Bench. • Crown Frozen Foods vs. Addl.CIT 93 TTJ 485 ITAT Mumbai Bench. • Pawan Kumar vs AO, 106 TTJ 494 ITAT Jodhpur Bench. • CIT vs. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd., (2008) 303 ITR 256 (Del). • CIT vs. Hindustan Marketing and Advertising Co. Ltd. 341 ITR 180 • (Del.). • CIT vs. Design & Automation Engineers (Bombay) (P) Ltd., 323 ITR 632 (Bom). 4. Ld DR however supported the findings of Ld. Tax authorities. 5. It can be appreciated form the impugned order that the primarily the Ld Revisional authority was not convinced as to…