How many judgments cite CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd.?

205 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd. (341 ITR 293), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 32, Section 132, Section 153A, Section 142(1).

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 263 Section 143(3)Section 32 Section 132 Section 153A Section 142(1)Section 14A Section 37

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

csr expenditure section 135 lack of enquiry malabar industrial application of income disallowance under section 14a erroneous and prejudicial capital expenditure section 40(a)section 40(a)(ia)liable to tax disallowance u/s 14a

Judgments citing CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd.

M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6073/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ―C‖: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Havells India Ltd, Vs. DCIT, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi CR Building IP Estate, PAN: AAACH0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. DCIT, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, LTU, NBCC Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, PAN: AAACH0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) ACIT (LTU), Vs. Havells India Ltd, NBCC Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi PAN: AAACH…

M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6072/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

Pushpa Devi Sonthalia, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT, Kolkata - 2, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 958/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 263

…said presumption, is thus converted into a conclusive proof of the fact that the order was passed by the assessing officer after due application of mind. Meerut Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.I.T., ITA No. 116/Coch/2012; CIT vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd., 341 ITR 293 (Karnataka); S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984; A. A. Doshi vs. JCIT, 256 ITR 685; Hindusthan Tin Works Ltd. Vs. CIT, 275 ITR 43 (Del), distinguished. (Paras 90-92, 102) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SOHANA WOOLLEN MILLS 296 ITR 238 (P&H HC) A reference to the provisions of s. 263 shows that jurisdiction thereunder can be exerc…

Commissioner of Income vs. M/S Tech Mahendra Ltd

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

ITA/200/2011HC Karnataka04 Jun 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234CSection 260Section 260A

…ue had preferred an appeal before this court and the matter was remitted to the assessing officer. In this connection, reliance has been placed on decision of this court in ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER V. INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD.’, (2014) 360 ITR 714 (KARN). 9 5. We have considered the submissions made by the revenue and have perused the record. The first substantial question of law framed by bench of this court need not detain us as it is no longer res integra and is squarely covered by decision of the supreme court in ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. HCL TECHNOLOGIE…

Shri Gurvinder Singh Suri, New Delhi vs. Pr CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2644/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2644/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Gurvinder Singh Suri, Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income C/O M/S Rra Taxindia, Tax (Central)-1, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaps8291D Assessee By : Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Sushma Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.05.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT DR

Section 119Section 263Section 263(1)Section 57

…of Id CIT in invoking his jurisdiction u/s 263 of the act. Hence, order passed u/s 263 of the act by the Id CIT is upheld and appeal of the assessee is dismissed.’’ 8. Order of Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA in the case of CIT vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd. 341 ITR 293 dated 04.01.2012 “Section 263 is a section which enables the Commissioner to have a look at the orders or proceedings of the lower authorities and to effect a correction, if so needed, particularly if the order or proceeding is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. This provision occurs in a taxing statute, the object of whic…

Skan Enterprise, Kolkata vs. Pr.C.I.T.-12, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 840/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 263

…Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.I.T., ITA No. 116 /Coch/ 2012; CIT vs. Infosys Meerut Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.I.T., ITA No. 116 /Coch/ 2012; CIT vs. Infosys Meerut Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.I.T., ITA No. 116 /Coch/ 2012; CIT vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd., 341 ITR 293 (Karnataka); S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 Technologies Ltd., 341 ITR 293 (Karnataka); S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 Technologies Ltd., 341 ITR 293 (Karnataka); S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984; A. A. Doshi vs. JCIT, 256 ITR 685; Hindusthan Tin Works Ltd. Vs. CIT, SC 1984; A. A. Doshi vs. JCIT, 256 I…

M/S Nicholas Piramal India Ltd vs. Addlcit RG - 7(1)

ITA 6141/MUM/2003[2000 01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2020

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. Addl. Commissioner Of Piramal Healthcare Ltd. Income - Tax Range-7(1), (Earlier Known As Nicholas Piramal India Ltd), Mumbai 4Th Floor, Piramal Tower Annexe, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai – 400013 Pan – Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) D.C.I.T, Circle-7 (1), M/S Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. 452, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Piramal Healthcare Ltd. Mumbai. 4Th Floor, Piramal Tower Annexe, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai – 400013

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Senior advocateFor Respondent: Shri Ronak Doshi, A.R

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 14ASection 44A

…at a similar view had been arrived at by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of CIT, Patiala vs. Groz Beckert Asia Ltd. (2013) 351 ITR 196 (P&H) and that of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in CIT vs. Infosys Technologies (No.1) (2012) 349 ITR 582. On the basis of our aforesaid observations, we find no infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(A) that the club membership fees of Rs.3,03,500/- paid by the assessee during the year under consideration was allowable as a revenue expenditure. The Ground of appeal No. 5 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 33. We shall now take up the claim of the…

M/S Patron Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-10(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1614/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

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

…ITA No.1614/Kol/2019 M/s. Patron Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. AY: 2014-15 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम")"ी पी. एम.जगताप, उपा"य" एवं "ी ए.ट". वक","या"यक सद"य) [Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice President (KZ) & Shri A. T. Varkey, JM] I.T.A. No. 1614/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Patron Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward-10(4), (PAN: AAECP6165G) Kolkata. Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 14.11.2019 Date of Pronouncement 31.12.2019 For the Appellant Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate For the Respondent Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT, DR ORDER…

Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee ITA No

ITA 2996/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. G. Manjunatha & Shri. Ravish Sood

Section 263Section 263(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

…and I am satisfied that these conditions are satisfied in the case of the assessee, for exercising jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. The powers u/s.263 came up for consideration before the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v, Infosys Technologies Ltd., (341 ITR 293). Reference was made by the Karnataka High Court to the observations of the Supreme Court in the cases of Electro House (82 ITR 824) and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT, to hold that since the AO had not disclosed the basis on which the tax reliefs were arrived at in the assessment order, being important for determination of tax liability, the…

Shri Narayan Saraf, Kolkata vs. Pr.C.I.T.-12, Kolkata

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

ITA 2214/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 2214/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Shri Narayan Saraf………………………….................……....……………..…..……...……………...…Appellant 56, N.S. Road 2Nd Floor Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan: Akkps 6352 B] Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -12, Kolkata………………………..........….....……......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate & Shri Jaydeep Chakraborty, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Dr. P.K. Srihari, Jcit, Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 13Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 29Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata -12, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”), Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 14/03/2019, For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. At The Outset We Find That There Is A Delay Of 131 (One Hundred Thirty One) Days In Filing Of This Appeal. After Perusing The Petition For Condonation, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal On Time. Hence The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted.

Section 143(3)Section 263

….T., ITA No. 116 /Coch/ 2012; CIT vs. Meerut Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.I.T., ITA No. 116 /Coch/ 2012; CIT vs. Meerut Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.I.T., ITA No. 116 /Coch/ 2012; CIT vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd., 341 I Infosys Technologies Ltd., 341 ITR 293 (Karnataka); S.N. Mukherjee vs. TR 293 (Karnataka); S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984; A. A. Doshi vs. JCIT, 256 ITR 685; Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984; A. A. Doshi vs. JCIT, 256 ITR 685; Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984; A. A. Doshi vs. JCIT, 256 ITR 685; Hindusthan Tin Works Ltd. Vs. CIT, 275 ITR 43 (Del), distinguished. Hi…

M/S. Great Eastern Energy Corporation Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5728/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Great Eastern Energy Circle-10(2), Corporation Ltd, New Delhi Signature Towers-A, 14Th Floor, South City, Nh-8, Gurgaon Pan: Aaacg3345F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Sr

Section 143Section 37Section 37(1)

…sibility expenditure also of the assessee which cannot be disallowed u/s 37 (1) of the income tax act for assessment year 2011 – 12. He further referred to the decision in case of CIT vs. Infosys technologies of the honourable Karnataka High Court reported in 360 ITR 714 prominently along with others. 15. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The learned CIT – A in paragraph number 6.3 of his order as noted that assessee has incurred the expenditure towards community development expenses which were incurred for donation for festivals, construction of ma…

M/S. Great Estern Energy Corporation Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3360/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Sr

Section 143Section 37Section 37(1)

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Great Eastern Energy Corporation Ltd., Gurgaon

The appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3310/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Sr

Section 143Section 37Section 37(1)

Virandra Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. CIT, International Texation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2055/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri V.P. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sulekha Verma, Sr.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ware Packing Products & Camphor Works vs. CIT (1998) 231 ITR 53 (SC) 6. CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan 384 ITR 200 dated May 11, 2016 (SC) 7. PTC Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, ITA No.2860/Del/2010 dated 03.04.2018 (Tribunal) 8. CIT vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd., 341 ITR 293 (Kar.) 9. Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT, 99 ITR 375 (Del.) 10. Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.3046/Del/2016 for A.Y. 2009-10 order dated 11.01.2019 (Delhi.) 11. Ramesh Kumar, ITA No.1982/Del/2018 for Assessment Year 2014-15 dated 25.01.2019.” 7. We have heard the rival submissions and also perused the relevant findings given in t…

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

…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. Therefore, one of the conditions of section 263 of the Act is not satisfied. The learned Counsel drawing our attention to section 115JAA of the Act submitted, there is no r…

M/S. Hindustan Tin Works Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5906/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…order of the CIT(A). 6. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The Tribunal in A.Y. 2012-13 held as under: “16. Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case cited as CIT & Anr. Vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd. – (2014) 360 ITR 714 allowed the expenditure incurred by Infosys Technologies Ltd. on account of CSR by installing traffic signal near the establishment to ease the traffic congestion u/s 37(1) of the Act by holding that such expenses can be held to be expanded wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business u/s 37(1) of the Act. 17. In this case, the assessee cla…

Gmr Hyderabad International Airport Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2189/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice Presidnet & Shri B.R Baskaranassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.V Pradeep Kumar, CIT

Section 30

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDNET AND SHRI B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2009-10 GMR Hyderabad International Airport Vs. The Commissioner of Ltd., Income-tax, Circle-11(3) (Old Range) No.25/1, Skip House, Museum Road, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore-560 025. Bangalore PAN – AABH 3448 M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Sunil Jain, C.A Respondent by : Shri P.V Pradeep Kumar, CIT Date of hearing : 06.06.2019 Date of Pronouncement : .07.2019 O R D E R Per B.R Baskaran, Accountant Member The appeal filed by the assesse…

Medicare Tpa Service (I) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Principal CIT, Kol - 4, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1045/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1045/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Medicare Tpa Service (I) Pvt. Ltd………………………......…………………………………………Appellant 6B, Bishop Lefroy Road Ground Floor 10, 6B, Paul Mansion Bhowanipore Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aadcm 1682 L] Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata -4..................................................…..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A.K. Nayak, Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 22Nd, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 10Th , 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata - 4, (Ld. Pr. Cit) Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Dt. 27/02/2018, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. At The Outset We Find That There Is A Delay Of 13 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. After Perusing The Petition For Condonation, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal On Time. Hence The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted. 3. The Assessee Is A Company & Is In The Business Of, Health Insurance Claim Processing Etc. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30/09/2013, Declaring Income Of Rs.4,80,10,710/-. The Assessing Officer Completed Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act, Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.5,37,81,250/- Under The Normal Provisions & At Rs.2,72,98,018/- As Book Profit U/S 115Jb Of The Act. The Ld. Pr. Cit, Issued A Showcause Notice Dt. 04/2/2017 Proposing Revision Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 04/12/2015, By Invoking His Powers U/S 263 Of The Act,On The Following Points:-

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 244ASection 263

…id presumption, is thus converted into a conclusive proof of the fact that the order was passed by the assessing officer after due application of mind. Meerut Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.I.T., ITA No. 116 /Coch/ 2012; CIT vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd., 341 ITR 293 (Karnataka); S.N. Mukherjee vs. 10 I.T.A. No. 1045/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Medicare TPA Service (I) Pvt. Ltd Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984; A. A. Doshi vs. JCIT, 256 ITR 685; Hindusthan Tin Works Ltd. Vs. CIT, 275 ITR 43 (Del), distinguished. (Paras 90-92, 102) 6.5. The propositions of law laid down in the above case-law is that,…

M/S Mindtree Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

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

ITA 424/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

Section 10Section 10ASection 11Section 115JSection 12Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

…ation of book profit u/s. 115JB. 5. As against this, the ld. DR of revenue supported the impugned order of CIT. She placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd. as reported in [2012] 341 ITR 293 (Karnataka). She drawn our attention to Para nos. 26 to 28 of this judgment and pointed out that if any relief is allowed by the AO without any discussion or reasoning in the assessment order, then such an assessment order is not merely erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and under these facts, the CIT was justified in e…

Philips India Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-IV, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1142/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Mar 2019AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited..........……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant Earlier Known As Philips Electronics India Limited 7 No. Justice Chandra Madhab Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv, Kolkata…….............…....................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Shri Navneet Misra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 27Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

…id presumption, is thus converted into a conclusive proof of the fact that the order was passed by the assessing officer after due application of mind. Meerut Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.I.T., ITA No. 116 /Coch/ 2012; CIT vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd., 341 ITR 293 (Karnataka); S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984; A. A. Doshi vs. JCIT, 256 ITR 685; Hindusthan Tin Works Ltd. Vs. CIT, 275 ITR 43 (Del), distinguished. (Paras 90-92, 102) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SOHANA WOOLLEN MILLS 296 ITR 238 (P&H HC) 30 I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited A referen…