CIT v. ICICI Bank Limited

343 ITR 74High Court2012#3732 most cited

What is CIT v. ICICI Bank Limited authority for?

The period of limitation for exercising revisionary powers under section 263(2) of the Income-tax Act begins from the date of the original assessment order under section 143(3) if the issue sought to be revised was covered by that order and was not part of the reassessment.

32

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. ICICI Bank · section 263 · section 143(3) · revision limitation · date of assessment order · section 263(2) · erroneous and prejudicial · lack of enquiry · income escaping assessment

Also reported as

19 Taxmann.com 142

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 147Section 144BSection 115JBSection 143(2)Section 144CSection 14A
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 263(2)doctrine of mergersection 148(2)section 263(1)revision u/s 263malabar industrialrevision under section 263lack of enquiryincome escaping assessmenterroneous and prejudicialnational faceless assessment centresection 263

Judgments citing CIT v. ICICI Bank Limited

M/S Karmae Garchen Trust, Kangra vs. JCIT, Palampur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 624/CHANDI/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shrir.L Negiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.624 /Chd/2016 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years :2011-12 M/S Karmaegarchen Trust, The Jcit, बनाम Gyutoromoche Tantric Palampur Range, University, Sidhbari, Palampur (Hp) Dharmsala, Distt. Kangra (Hp) Pan No: Aabtk2394L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT
Section 12Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 263o

…ed notice u/s 263 of the Act, beyond the period of limitation , which is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd.293 ITR I and the Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. 343 ITR 74 (Bom). The Ld. counsel further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar ITA No.624-Chd-2019- M/s KarmaeGarchan Trust, Distt. Kangra 5 Industries Co Ltd.vs CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC), Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Software consultants 341 ITR 240 (Del) and the decision of the coordinate Bench in the…

Royal Western India Turf Club, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed, as indicated above

ITA 640/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Rajesh Kumar ()

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(2)

…n support of such contention, learned counsel relied upon the following decisions:- S.No. Particulars 1. CIT Vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd., [2007] 293 ITR 1 (SC) 2. Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. Vs. ACIT, [2010] 325 ITR 574 (Bom.) 3. CIT Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd., [2012] 343 ITR 74 (Bom.) 4. Indira Industries Vs. PCIT, [2018] 95 TAXMANN.COM 103 (Mad.) 5. CIT Vs. Lark Chemicals Ltd, [2014] 368 ITR 655 (Bom.) 6. CIT Vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd., [2013] 37 taxmann.com 218 (Del.) 7. CIT Vs. Shriram Engg. Construction Co. Ltd., [201 1] 330 ITR 568 (Mad.) 8. L.G.Electronics India (P.) Ltd. Vs. PCIT, [2016] 388 ITR 135 (All.) 5 ITA…

Spectrum Venture Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1077/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rajnish K. Vohra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajeek Sahu, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…R in defense of his arguments relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd. [(2007)] 162 Taxman 465 (SC)].The ld AR also relies on a series of decisions namely 6 M/s. Spectrum Venture Pvt. Ltd. CIT Vs ICICI Bank Ltd (343 ITR 74)(Bombay), Skyline Builders Vs CIT (412 ITR 182)(Kerala) and L.G. Electronics India (P.) Ltd Vs PCIT (388 ITR 135)(Allahabad). 6. The ld DR on the other hand contended that two years have to be taken from the date of assessment framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 29.12.2017 and not from the date of original assessment order passed u/s 14…

M/S. the India Cements Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle - 2 (1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 833/CHNY/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. S.Bharath,CITFor Respondent: 13.07.2021
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

…period of limitation shall run from the original assessment u/s.143(3). Hence the action of CIT to invoke his jurisdiction in this respect is clearly barred by limitation and has to be set aside. [CIT vs. Alagendran Finance 293 ITR 1 (SC) ; CIT vs ICICI Bank 343 ITR 74 (Bom); CIT vs. Shriram Investments (Mad)] 3.5 The Commissioner of Income-tax ought to have appreciated that the amount of brought forward Losses as per books to be set off against the Book Profits for this year, as claimed by Assessee in the return is Rs.275.75 Crores. The AC has set off the Loss to the extent of the Book profits assessed in each…

M/S Shree Shyam Sponge & Power Pvt Ltd, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal

In the result the grounds of the appeal is allowed

ITA 54/BIL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 263Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 54/RPR/2016 for (AY: 2008-09) M/s. Shree Shyam Sponge & Vs. Principal Commissioner of Power Pvt. Ltd., 1st Floor, Income Tax (Central), Bhopal. Mahamaya Tower, G.E. Road, Raipur (CG) PAN No. AAHCS 1901 N (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee by : Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CA. Department by : Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 10/08/2021. Date of pronouncement : 10/08/2021. Order Under Section 254(1) of Income –tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. T…

The Tata Power Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed, as indicated above

ITA 1307/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Rajesh Kumar ()

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 147Section 263Section 80I

…iginal assessment order has already expired. In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decisions:- 1. CIT vs Alagendran Finance Ltd 293 ITR 1 (SC) 5 ITA 1307/Mum/2020 2. Àsoka Buildcon Ltd vs ACIT 325 ITR 574 (Bom) 3. CIT vs ICICI Bank Ltd 343 ITR 74 (Bom) 4. M/s Janata Industries vs PCIT ITA No.4025 & 4026/Mum/2017 dt 23- 05-2018 5. Strongly relying upon the observations of learned PCIT, the learned departmental representative submitted, the order passed under section 263 of the Act is not barred by limitation as it is very much clear that learned PCIT has revised the assessment order passed…

Begani Dyeing Mills Pvt.Ltd., Surat vs. The Pr.CIT., Circle-1, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 404/SRT/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.404/Srt/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S.Begani Dyeing Mills Pvt. Vs The Principal Ltd., Commissioner Of Income 11 To 15, Tara Industrial Estate, Tax-1, Surat. Opp. Gangdhi Kutir, Udhna Magdalla Road, Surat – 395007. [Pan: Aaacb 9634 L] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रतीकीओर से /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah – Ar राज"कीओर से /Revenue By Shri S.T.Bidari – Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 22.03.2021 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 22.03.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Surat-1, Surat Hereinafter Referred As “Ld. Pcit” , Passed Under Section 263 Dated 07.12.2018 For The A.Y.2012-13. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Pr. Cit Has Erred In Passing The Order U/S . 263 By Invoking Of Section 263 Of The Act, Although The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S 143(3) Of The I. T. Act, 1961 Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सुरत "ायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, Hon'ble JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI, Hon'ble ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.404/SRT/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s.Begani Dyeing Mills Pvt. Vs The Principal Ltd., Commissioner of Income 11 to 15, Tara Industrial Estate, Tax-1, Surat. Opp. Gangdhi Kutir, Udhna Magdalla Road, Surat – 395007. [PAN: AAACB 9634 L] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रतीकीओर से /Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah – AR राज"कीओर से /Revenue by Shri S.T.Bidari – CIT(DR) सुनव…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. Prcit, Gurugram

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed on the issue of the impugned order passed beyond the prescribed time, other issues are left open

ITA 4607/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2020AY 2009-10
For Appellant: ShriSalilKapoor, AdvFor Respondent: ShriRaman Chopra[CIT] –
Section 143Section 144CSection 147Section 263Section 263(2)Section 92C

…impugned order loses its validity on this count itself. He further relied on the decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in case of Asoka BuildconLtd versus PCIT [325 ITR 574], CIT versus Lark chemicals Ltd [230 taxman 305] and CIT versus ICICI bank Ltd [343 ITR 74]. He further submitted that on the issues raised in the present revisionary proceedings, limitations to pass revisionary order has to be, if at all, should be counted from the original assessment order dated 16/1/2014 passed under section 143 (3) of the act which already expired on 31/3/2016. Therefore, he submitted that the order passed under sec…

Ambuja Cements Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 3643/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/wFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Verma
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

…ioner (Appeals) cannot be revised under section 263 of the Act. In support of the aforesaid contention, the learned Counsel relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Alagendran Finance Ltd., [2007] 293 ITR 001 (SC); ii) CIT v/s ICICI Bank Ltd., [2012] 343 ITR 74 (Bom.); iii) CIT v/s Lark Chemicals Ltd., [2014] 368 ITR 655 (Bom.); iv) CIT v/s Dena Bank, ITA no.2412/2013 (Bom.); and v) CIT v/s Infosys Technologies Ltd., 341 ITR 290 (Kar.). 5. Further, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted, there is no error in the decision of the Assessing Officer in allowing MAT credit of amalgamating company. Th…

Metropolitan Stock Exchange of India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 14, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 4081/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sumant Chadha &
Section 142Section 147Section 148Section 263

…upport of this proposition, the assessee has placed on record case laws from the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. In this context, we may gainfully refer to the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. ICICI bank Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 74 (Bom), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has referred to another decision in Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT [2010] 325 ITR 574 for the following proposition: "...Where a reassessment has been made pursuant to a notice under Section 148, the order of reassessment prevails in respect of those items which form part of reassessment. On items which…

M/S.Us Technology International P. Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The JCIT, Trivandrum

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

ITA 247/COCH/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.M.Raghunathan SFor Respondent: Sri.Santam Bose
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263

…comment with reference to the original order of assessment with respect to those issues which did not for the subject matter of the reassessment proceedings. This position was also upheld by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v ICICI Bank Limited [2012] 343 ITR 74. 1.2 On facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT has erred in not considering the fact that the Appellant is not in receipt of the order under section 143(3) (dated 26 April 2013 as p Department records). In absence of the same, the valid order for revision would be the intimation dated 22 January 2011 issued under section 143(1…

Konark Structural Engg Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-12, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5488/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Revenue by B Sriniwas, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…cation under section 154 /254 of the Act is entirely different from the jurisdiction of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 because the two provisions operate in different fields. 15. Even, Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 74 (Bom.) considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Alagendran Finance Ltd. and also the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Ashoka Buildcon Ltd vs. ACIT (2010) 325 ITR 574 (Bom.) has considered this exactly identical issue and held that the limitation period of two years under section 263 for revision of assessment st…