What is CIT v. G. R. Thangamaligai authority for?

Revision under Section 263 is not justified in the absence of a finding by the Commissioner that there is a loss of revenue to the State.

How many judgments cite CIT v. G. R. Thangamaligai?

19 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. G. R. Thangamaligai (259 ITR 129), spanning 2016 to 2024.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. G. R. Thangamaligai come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 11, Section 11(1)(a), Section 143(3), Section 144B, Section 2(15), Section 263.

CIT v. G. R. Thangamaligai (259 ITR 129)

ADVERTISING AGENCIES ASSOCIATION OF INDIA ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION ), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assesseeITA No

ITA 2370/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: ShriAmol Kirtane (CIT-DR.)

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

…21 (Bombay) 9. PROPOSITION 9: In the present case, the CIT has nowhere stated in his order that there is any loss of Revenue. In the absence of any finding as regards loss of revenue, the revision u/s 263 is not justified [Ref. CIT v/s Thangamaligai - (2003) 259 ITR 129 (Madras) last but one paragraph] 10. PROPOSITION 10: An order passed by the national faceless assessment Centre is not subject to revision since the same is a result of team- based assessment. Ref: M/s Agrani Buildestate v/s PCIT-ITA 205/JP/2023 8 ITA No. 2370-Mum-2024 Advertising Agencies Association of India 11. PROPOSITION 11: While exercisi…

NARESH KUMAR BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 221/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan SoganiFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Dhaka, CIT

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…it must mean that the orders of assessment challenged are such as not in accordance with law, in consequence whereof the lawful revenue due to the State has not been realized or cannot be realized. It can mean nothing else…” 7.2.ii G.R. Thangamaligai [2003] 259 ITR 129 (MAD.) “In the absence of any finding that there is loss of revenue, interference under section 263 of the Act was not justified. 7.2.iii Eveready Industries India Ltd [2020] 181 ITD 528 (Kolkata - Trib.) “…The Hon'ble Supreme Court, held that for invoking powers conferred by S.263; the CIT should not only show that the AO's order is erroneous a…

NIMITA SONI PROP. SWARANLATA TRADERS,BIKANER vs. PCIT-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 41/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: The Hearing.”

Section 143(3)Section 263

…rroneous" is lacking. Reliance is placed on the following decisions: 1. CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom); 2. BCCI v. Director of IT (Exemptions), 278 ITR (AT) 83 (Mum); 3. JK Industries Ltd. v. ACIT, 283 ITR 101 (Cal); 4. CIT v. Thangamaligai (GR), 259 ITR 129 (Mad); 5. CIT v. Girdhari Lal, 258 ITR 331 (Raj); and 6. CIT v. Giridhar Lal, 258 ITR 231 (Raj). (c) Even assuming that the enquiries made by the Assessing Officer are inadequate, the jurisdiction under Sec. 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be assumed as it was only in Nimita Soni Prop. Swaranlata Traders the cases of lack of enquiries that the…

M/S ARENA ENTERPRISES ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , MUMBAI-17

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 862/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Arena Enterprise V. Pcit –Mumbai-17 Cts No. 20, Arena Space, Village Majas Room No. 120, 1St Floor Jvlr, Behind Majas Depot Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43 Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai - 400060 G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aanfa3473E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Mrugakshi Joshi Department Represented By : Shri Jagadish Jangid

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

…ST OF THE REVENUE, as it would not result in any addition even if the matter is sent back to the Assessing Officer. 21. In absence of any finding that there is loss of revenue, interference under section 263 is not justified. CIT v. G. R. Thangamaligai [2003] 259 ITR 129 (Mad.) (HC). 10 M/s. Arena Enterprise 22. It is hereby submitted that the Order of the Assessing Officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and hence, the Commissioner of Income Tax cannot assume jurisdiction under section 263 (1) of the Act. 23. The department is not entitled to reopen an assessment based on a…

RIVET ELECTRICAL PVT LTD,FARIDABAD vs. PR. CIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6225/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Rivet Electrical Pvt.Ltd., Vs Pr.Cit, Ff-9, Vishnu Place, Faridabad, Near Neelam Flyover, Sec-20B, Haryana. Faridabad, Haryana-121002. Pan-Aafcr8803C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rajeev Saxena, Adv., Ms. Sumangl Saxena, Adv. & Shri Sahyamsunder, Adv. Respondent By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.11.2022

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…the interests of the revenue: - Income has been under assessed: - Loss has been over assessed; - Income has been assessed at a lower rate; - Excess deductions, allowances and reliefs have been allowed to assessee. 15. In CIT v. G. R. Thangamaligai [2003] 259 ITR 129 (Mad.) (HC) it was held that in absence of any finding that there is loss of revenue, interference u/s 263 is not justified. 16. The powers under section 263 of the Act are to be invoked on satisfaction of twin conditions of the order being both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Where the tax effect because of an order pa…

V.RAJASEKHAR ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1357/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsri V. Rajasekhar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad Ward-14(5), [Pan No. Aadpr0797E] Hyderabad Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 263

…on in the case of Olive Hospital private limited Vs. PCIT ITA No.770/Hyd/2017, (Para 7), decided by the Hon'ble ITAT Hyderabad Bench, wherein it was held as under: Page 24 of 26 "7. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CT vs. G.R. Tangamaligai (2003) 259 ITR 129 has held that in the absence of any finding that there is loss of revenue, interference u/s 263 is not justified. Similar view was taken by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal at Chandigarh in the case of Punjab Wool Syndicate vs. ITO (2012) 317 ITR (7) 439 (Chandigarh). Further, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal…

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 126/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. Prathviraj Meena (CIT)

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

…it must mean that the orders of assessment challenged are such as not in accordance with law, in consequence whereof the lawful revenue due to the State has not been realized or cannot be realized. It can mean nothing else…” 2.11.ii G.R. Thangamaligai [2003] 259 ITR 129 (MAD.) 23 Shri Kalyan Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Pr. CIT-2, Jaipur “In the absence of any finding that there is loss of revenue, interference under section 263 of the Act was not justified. 2.11.iii Eveready Industries India Ltd [2020] 181 ITD 528 (Kolkata -Trib.) “…The Hon'ble Supreme Court, held that for invoking powers conferred by S.2…

CHAMBAL ALUMS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX-UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

ITA 147/JPR/2022[/2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2022

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3

…SC), CIT vs Vikash Polymers (2010) 194 Taxman 57 (Delhi) (HC). In absence of any finding that 8 ITA147/JP/2022 CHAMBAL ALUMS PVT LTD. VS ACIT, CIRCLE-2, KOTA there is no loss of revenue, interference u/s 263 is not justified. CIT vs G.R. Thangamaligai (2003) 259 ITR 129 (Mad-HC) We further mentioned that in various cases it was held that where the Assessing Officer made proper enquiry and examined accounts, it could not be said that there was non- application of mind by him. Hence, the action u/s 263 was held invalid. Few cases are also reproduced as below. Antala Sanjay Kumar Ravjibhai vs CIT (2012) 135 ITD 506…

WINVEST HOLDINGS (I) PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 1519/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1519/Chny/2019. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-2015. M/S. Winvest Holdings (I) Pvt. Ltd, Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of D-16, 2Nd Floor, Nelson Chambers, Income Tax, No.115 Nelson Manickam Road, Corporate Circle 3(2), Aminjikarai, Chennai. Chennai 600 029. [Pan Aaacw 7724Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel, Advocate

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

…(i) Davjee Dadabhoy and Co. vs. S.P. Jain, (1957) 31 ITR 872 (ii) CIT vs. T. Narayana Pai, (1975) 98 ITR 422. (iii) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd, (1993) 203 ITR 108. (iv) CIT vs. Smt. Minalben S. Parikh, (1995) 215 ITR 81. (v) CIT vs. G.R. Thangamaligai, (2003) 259 ITR 129. It is further contended that assessment order was passed after making due enquiry on the issues sought to be revised, in case if the ld. PCIT was of the opinion that the Assessing Officer had not made any enquiry on the issues then it was for the ld. PCIT to make necessary enquiry and give finding that the assessment order is erroneous and the…

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - LARGE TAXPAYER'S UNIT, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 2794/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2794/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Tata Consultancy Services बिाम/ The Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax-Large Tax 9Th Floor, Nirmal Building, Payer‟S Unit, V. Nariman Point, 29Th Floor, Centre One Mumbai- 400021 World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacr4849R (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. R. R. Vora & Shri. Nikhil Tiwari Revenue By: Shri. R. Manjunatha Swamy (Cit-Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.04.2019

For Appellant: Shri. R. R. Vora &For Respondent: Shri. R. Manjunatha Swamy

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 263Section 263(1)

…dingly, the assessment order passed by the AO cannot be said to be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and hence revision under section 263 cannot be made. In this regard, reliance is placed on following judicial precedents: CIT v. G. R. Thangamaligai (259 ITR 129) (Mad. HC) Dr. B.A. Rajakrishnan (113 Taxman 405) (Kerala HC) The company has excluded the exchange fluctuation gain of Rs. 25,19,50,837 on derivatives which was unrealized as at Balance Sheet date while computing the taxable income for the year under consideration, as the same would be offered to tax on realized basis as per the consistent stand…

OLIVE HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-16(3), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 770/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Olive Hospitals Pvt Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner Hyderabad. Of Income Tax-4, Pan: Aabco 0749 G Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri D.V.Anjaneyulu Revenue By: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.01.2019 Order Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.:

For Appellant: Sri D.V.AnjaneyuluFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35A

…assessment after examining the claim u/s 35AD in detail. Therefore, according to us, the CIT has failed to fulfil the twin conditions u/s 263 of the Act for making the revision. 7. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. G.R. Tangamaligai [2003] 259 ITR 129 has held that in the absence of any finding that there is loss of revenue, interference u/s 263 is not justified. Similar view was taken by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal at Chandigarh in the case of Punjab Wool Syndicate vs. ITO [2012] 17 ITR (T) 439 (Chandigarh). Further, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal […

ALPEX HOLDINGS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 6, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3319/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negialpex Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai 400 013 Pan:Aaacn 7738H ...... Appellant Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -6, Room No.501, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai- 400 020 .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ronak D. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

…the following decisions:- 1. Malbar Industries Co. Ltd. v. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) 2. CIT v.. Gabriel India Ltd. - 203 ITR 108(Bom) 3. CIT v. D.G. Gopala Gowda 354 ITR 501(KAR) 4. CIT v. Smt. Minalben S. Parikh, 215 ITR 81(Guj) 5. CIT v. G.R. Thangamaligai [2003] 259 ITR 129 (Mad.) 4. On the other hand, on this aspect, Ld.CIT-DR appearing for the Revenue has merely relied upon the order of the PCIT in support of the case of the Revenue. 5. In the context of the preliminary point made by the appellant, it has to be appreciated that the phraseology of section 263(1) of the Act itself shows 6 that in order to invoke…

STERLING BIOTECH LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CEN 1, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 2756/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunathaswamy

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 69

…r, it is submitted that the learned Pr.CIT has not given any finding as to how the issues raised by him have led to any loss in revenue. In the absence of any such finding, interference u1s.263 is not permitted as held in the case of Thangamaliagi reported in 259 ITR 129. As already stated earlier, the assessment order has been ITA Nos.2750 to 2756/Mum/16 A.Ys. 06-07 to 12-13 [Sterling Biotech Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT] Page 12 passed by the AO u/s. 153A of the Act. In such cases, the entire case has already been analyzed and investigated even by the Investigation team at the time of search and post search. The order passe…

STERLING BIOTECH LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CEN 1, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 2755/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunathaswamy

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 69

…r, it is submitted that the learned Pr.CIT has not given any finding as to how the issues raised by him have led to any loss in revenue. In the absence of any such finding, interference u1s.263 is not permitted as held in the case of Thangamaliagi reported in 259 ITR 129. As already stated earlier, the assessment order has been ITA Nos.2750 to 2756/Mum/16 A.Ys. 06-07 to 12-13 [Sterling Biotech Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT] Page 12 passed by the AO u/s. 153A of the Act. In such cases, the entire case has already been analyzed and investigated even by the Investigation team at the time of search and post search. The order passe…

STERLING BIOTECH LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CEN 1, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 2754/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunathaswamy

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 69

…r, it is submitted that the learned Pr.CIT has not given any finding as to how the issues raised by him have led to any loss in revenue. In the absence of any such finding, interference u1s.263 is not permitted as held in the case of Thangamaliagi reported in 259 ITR 129. As already stated earlier, the assessment order has been ITA Nos.2750 to 2756/Mum/16 A.Ys. 06-07 to 12-13 [Sterling Biotech Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT] Page 12 passed by the AO u/s. 153A of the Act. In such cases, the entire case has already been analyzed and investigated even by the Investigation team at the time of search and post search. The order passe…

STERLING BIOTECH LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CEN 1, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 2753/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunathaswamy

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 69

…r, it is submitted that the learned Pr.CIT has not given any finding as to how the issues raised by him have led to any loss in revenue. In the absence of any such finding, interference u1s.263 is not permitted as held in the case of Thangamaliagi reported in 259 ITR 129. As already stated earlier, the assessment order has been ITA Nos.2750 to 2756/Mum/16 A.Ys. 06-07 to 12-13 [Sterling Biotech Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT] Page 12 passed by the AO u/s. 153A of the Act. In such cases, the entire case has already been analyzed and investigated even by the Investigation team at the time of search and post search. The order passe…

STERLING BIOTECH LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CEN 1, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 2752/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunathaswamy

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 69

…r, it is submitted that the learned Pr.CIT has not given any finding as to how the issues raised by him have led to any loss in revenue. In the absence of any such finding, interference u1s.263 is not permitted as held in the case of Thangamaliagi reported in 259 ITR 129. As already stated earlier, the assessment order has been ITA Nos.2750 to 2756/Mum/16 A.Ys. 06-07 to 12-13 [Sterling Biotech Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT] Page 12 passed by the AO u/s. 153A of the Act. In such cases, the entire case has already been analyzed and investigated even by the Investigation team at the time of search and post search. The order passe…

STERLING BIOTECH LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CEN 1, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 2751/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunathaswamy

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 69

…r, it is submitted that the learned Pr.CIT has not given any finding as to how the issues raised by him have led to any loss in revenue. In the absence of any such finding, interference u1s.263 is not permitted as held in the case of Thangamaliagi reported in 259 ITR 129. As already stated earlier, the assessment order has been ITA Nos.2750 to 2756/Mum/16 A.Ys. 06-07 to 12-13 [Sterling Biotech Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT] Page 12 passed by the AO u/s. 153A of the Act. In such cases, the entire case has already been analyzed and investigated even by the Investigation team at the time of search and post search. The order passe…

STERLING BIOTECH LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CEN 1, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 2750/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunathaswamy

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 69

…r, it is submitted that the learned Pr.CIT has not given any finding as to how the issues raised by him have led to any loss in revenue. In the absence of any such finding, interference u1s.263 is not permitted as held in the case of Thangamaliagi reported in 259 ITR 129. As already stated earlier, the assessment order has been ITA Nos.2750 to 2756/Mum/16 A.Ys. 06-07 to 12-13 [Sterling Biotech Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT] Page 12 passed by the AO u/s. 153A of the Act. In such cases, the entire case has already been analyzed and investigated even by the Investigation team at the time of search and post search. The order passe…

CIT v. G. R. Thangamaligai

What is CIT v. G. R. Thangamaligai authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. G. R. Thangamaligai

ADVERTISING AGENCIES ASSOCIATION OF INDIA ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION ), MUMBAI

NARESH KUMAR BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

NIMITA SONI PROP. SWARANLATA TRADERS,BIKANER vs. PCIT-1, JODHPUR

M/S ARENA ENTERPRISES ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , MUMBAI-17

RIVET ELECTRICAL PVT LTD,FARIDABAD vs. PR. CIT, FARIDABAD

V.RAJASEKHAR ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(5), HYDERABAD

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

CHAMBAL ALUMS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX-UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

WINVEST HOLDINGS (I) PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - LARGE TAXPAYER'S UNIT, MUMBAI

OLIVE HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-16(3), HYD, HYDERABAD

ALPEX HOLDINGS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 6, MUMBAI

STERLING BIOTECH LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CEN 1, MUMBAI

STERLING BIOTECH LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CEN 1, MUMBAI

STERLING BIOTECH LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CEN 1, MUMBAI

STERLING BIOTECH LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CEN 1, MUMBAI

STERLING BIOTECH LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CEN 1, MUMBAI

STERLING BIOTECH LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CEN 1, MUMBAI

STERLING BIOTECH LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CEN 1, MUMBAI