CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd.

341 ITR 293High Court2012#443 most cited

What is CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd. authority for?

A Commissioner can revise an assessment order under Section 263 if it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. This includes cases where the Assessing Officer fails to make further inquiries before accepting the assessee's statements in the return.

205

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd. · Section 263 · lack of enquiry · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · Commissioner revisionary power · Assessing Officer duty to inquire · revision of assessment order · 2012 Karnataka High Court

Also reported as

17 Taxmann.com 203237 CTR 141

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 143(3)Section 32Section 132Section 153ASection 142(1)Section 14ASection 37
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

csr expendituresection 135lack of enquirymalabar industrialapplication of incomedisallowance under section 14aerroneous and prejudicialcapital expendituresection 40(a)section 40(a)(ia)liable to taxdisallowance u/s 14a

Judgments citing CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd.

A.V. Industries, Mumbai vs. ACIT 24(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 3469/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. A.V. Industries, Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 201, Bhagtani Krishna, Tax -24(3), “A” Wing, Mumbai Vs. Dattaray Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaffa 1100L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri K. Shivaram, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.11.2015 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K. Shivaram, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/s. A.V. Industries, Asstt. Commissioner of Income 201, Bhagtani Krishna, Tax -24(3), “A” Wing, Mumbai Vs. Dattaray Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai – 400 054 PAN: AAFFA 1100L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri K. Shivaram, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Singh, D.R. Date of Hearing : 23.07.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 06.11.2015 O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee aga…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Prasha Technologies Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, department’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 6649/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Ms. Suchitra Kamble:Asstt. Yrs: 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-14(1), Vs. Prasha Technologies Ltd., New Delhi. J-1813 (Annexe), Chittranjan Park, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacp 3591 N ( Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T. Vaisanthan Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Mehta CA Adv

…1 Prasha Technologies Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE: JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Yrs: 2009-10 DCIT, Circle-14(1), Vs. Prasha Technologies Ltd., New Delhi. J-1813 (Annexe), Chittranjan Park, New Delhi. PAN: AAACP 3591 N ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri T. Vaisanthan Sr. DR Respondent by : Shri P.N. Mehta CA Adv. Date of hearing : 08/09/2015. Date of order : 05/11/2015. O R D E R PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M..: This appeal, preferred by the revenue, is directed against the order dated 30-09-2013, passe…

Vidyasagar Enterprises LLP, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 13, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2653/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2653/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Vidyasagar Enterprises Llp The Pr. Comm. Of Income Tax 13 (Formerly Vidyasagar Investments Ayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, बनाम/ Private Limited) Mumbai 400020. 6Th Floor, Business Park, S V Road, V. Chincholi Phatak, Malad (W), Mumbai 400064 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcv1066B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Haridas Bhat ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G M Doss

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhatFor Respondent: Shri G M Doss
Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “एफ” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2653/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/s Vidyasagar Enterprises LLP The Pr. Comm. Of Income Tax 13 (formerly Vidyasagar Investments Ayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, बनाम/ Private Limited) Mumbai 400020. 6th Floor, Business Park, S V Road, v. Chincholi Phatak, Malad (W), Mumbai 400064 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AABCV1066B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appe…

Autodesk India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 912/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT-I(DR)
Section 37

…rom the cost base while computing the profit margin of the assessee for transfer pricing purposes. 23. The ld. counsel for the assessee further relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd. (No.2),, 349 ITR 588 (Karn) and pointed out that the lease is only for three years with no certainty of further extension and the assessee did not occupy the premises for the expenditure to be treated as revenue expenditure. The ld. counsel for the assessee also relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Asera Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 1179/Ba…

M/S Subex Ltd., Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

In the result appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 689/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jun 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Radhakrishna, CIT-III(DR)
Section 115JSection 263Section 35D

…the show cause notice u/s.263 of the Act were not verified by the AO and therefore his order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In coming to the above conclusion the CIT placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Page 18 of 38 341 ITR 293 (Karn.). In the aforesaid decision, the assessee claimed certain reliefs in terms of DTAA. The assessing authority had indicated that, deductions on such amounts were in terms of double taxation agreement relief in existence between our country and the countries of Canada and Thailand and allowed reliefs as claimed by the assessee. The CIT revis…