CIT v. Lark Chemicals Ltd.

368 ITR 655High Court2014#3134 most cited

What is CIT v. Lark Chemicals Ltd. authority for?

The time limit for revision under section 263(2) runs from the date of the original assessment order under section 143(3) if the issue subject to revision was not part of a subsequent reassessment. If the original assessment was under section 143(1) and reopened under section 147, the limitation period for revision under section 263 runs from the section 143(1) intimation.

38

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Lark Chemicals Ltd. · CIT v. Lark Chemicals Ltd. · section 263(2) · section 143(3) · section 147 · revision limitation · original assessment order · reassessment proceedings · time-barred revision · erroneous and prejudicial

Also reported as

55 Taxmann.com 446

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 148Section 143(1)Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 144

Issues it is cited on

section 263(2)section 147ofsection 72arevision u/s 263doctrine of mergersection 72section 263(1)section 40a(3)assessment order erroneouserroneous and prejudicialsection 40areopening of assessment

Judgments citing CIT v. Lark Chemicals Ltd.

Indian Education Society, Mumbai vs. CIT (E), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2923/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Jhaveri, CIT, DR
Section 10(23)Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 Indian Education Society, Commissioner of Income Tax 135/145, Raja Shivaji (E), Mumbai Vidyasankul, Vs. L.N. Road, Hindu Colony, Dadar (East), Mumbai 400 014 (PAN : AAAT12540P) (Assessee) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Shri Devendra Jain, Advocate Revenue : Shri Jayant Jhaveri, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 29.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 30.10.2024 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against…

Bonjour Estates (P) Limited, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT-1, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee partly allowed

ITA 732/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Bonjour Estates (P) Ltd., The Pcit (1), C-444, Defence Colony, New New Delhi 110002 Delhi 110024 Vs. Pan Aaecn 4851 H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca For Revenue : Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: A: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Bonjour Estates (P) Ltd., The PCIT (1), C-444, Defence Colony, New New Delhi 110002 Delhi 110024 vs. PAN AAECN 4851 H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Neeraj Mangla, CA For Revenue : Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 15.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 11.04.2023 ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, J.M. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.03.2021 of the Ld. PCIT(1), New Del…

Manohar Manak Alloys P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 4(2), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1159/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)

…n 263(2) of the Act started running from the date on which intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act was issued (i.e. 21.09.2018). Our view draws strength from the judgment of the Hon‘ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Lark Chemicals Limited: [2014] 368 ITR 655 (Bombay). 20. In view of the above, the revisional order, dated 25.03.2022, having been passed by the PCIT after the expiry of the period of limitation specified in Section 263(2) of the Act is, therefore, set aside as being barred by limitation. The order dated 30.12.2019 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act is reinstate…

Raj Real Estate & Finvest Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal CIT-5, Mumbai

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

ITA 538/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 538/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Pcit Mumbai-5, Raj Real Estate & Finvest Pvt. R. No. 515, 5Th Floor, Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 1807, Panchartna Building, Vs. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mama Parmanand Marg Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabcr3037J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Suchek Anchaliya T Tushar Nagori, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahita Nayar, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 07.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 03.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya TFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nayar, Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 22Section 263Section 68

…ing, the period of limitation for revision would commence from the date of order of original assessment and not reassessment. In support of it, he strongly relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vrs. Lark Chemical Ltd. (368 ITR 655) and also the decision of Coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of Royal Western India Turf Club vs. PCIT (ITA No. 640/Mum/2021). Thus, the entire order of Ld PCIT u/s 263 is barred by limitation. 4 I.T.A. No. 538/Mum/2022 Raj Real Estate & Finvest Pvt. Ltd. 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that there was no assessment order as earlier it w…

Shimla Properties, Lucknow vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow

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

ITA 113/LKW/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow01 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2012-13 Shimla Properties V. The Pcit 30C, Datiya House Lucknow Khursheed Bagh Lucknow Tan/Pan:Ablfs9732M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Neeraj Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 16 08 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01 09 2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Neeraj Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 263

…was passed in scrutiny proceedings under section 143(3), whereas the one passed in the present case is under section 143(1). On being put to question regarding this, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on CIT vs. Lark Chemicals Ltd.’, [2014] 368 ITR 655 Page 13 of 16 (Bom.), wherein, the assessment was framed under section 143(1) and wherein, ‘Alagendran Finance’ (Supra) was followed. 23. In ‘CIT vs. Lark Chemicals Ltd.’ (supra), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, on a similar issue, following, inter alia, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘CIT vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd.’ (supra), con…

Mahotsav Creation Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Pr. Commission of Income Tax, -1, Surat

In the result, Both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 50/SRT/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.49 & 50/Srt/2021 Assessment Years: (2010-11 & 2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Mahotsav Creation Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 101-102, 1St Floor, Sakar Textile Income-Tax-1, Aayakar Bhawan, Market, Ring Road, Surat-395002. Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecm2394Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/06/2022 22/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 151(1)Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.49 & 50/SRT/2021 Assessment Years: (2010-11 & 2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Mahotsav Creation Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner of 101-102, 1st Floor, Sakar Textile Income-Tax-1, Aayakar Bhawan, Market, Ring Road, Surat-395002. Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAECM2394Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Respondent by Shri H. P. Meena, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 28/06/2022 22/08/2022 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R PE…

Mahotsav Creation Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Pr. Commission of Income Tax, -1, Surat

In the result, Both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 49/SRT/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.49 & 50/Srt/2021 Assessment Years: (2010-11 & 2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Mahotsav Creation Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 101-102, 1St Floor, Sakar Textile Income-Tax-1, Aayakar Bhawan, Market, Ring Road, Surat-395002. Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecm2394Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/06/2022 22/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 151(1)Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.49 & 50/SRT/2021 Assessment Years: (2010-11 & 2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Mahotsav Creation Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner of 101-102, 1st Floor, Sakar Textile Income-Tax-1, Aayakar Bhawan, Market, Ring Road, Surat-395002. Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAECM2394Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Respondent by Shri H. P. Meena, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 28/06/2022 22/08/2022 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R PE…

M/S. Ravi Foundation, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-17, Mumbai

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

ITA 884/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Ms. Arati AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar (Sr. AR)
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 263(2)

…endran 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.) 9. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. Vs. PCIT, ITAT-New Delhi, dated 14.05.2020 10. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, [2000] 243 ITR…

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)

…dran 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 640/Mum/2021 9. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. Vs. PCIT, ITAT-New Delhi, dated 14.05.2020 10. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs.…

Ambe Tradecorp Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT (Central), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 53/AHD/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.53/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 Ambe Tradecorp Private Limited, The P.C.I.T.(Central) Iscon House, Vs. Ahmedabad. B/H. Rembrandt Building, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Smt Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ D’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And Ms MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.53/AHD/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 Ambe Tradecorp Private Limited, The P.C.I.T.(Central) Iscon House, Vs. Ahmedabad. B/h. Rembrandt Building, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad. PAN: AABCJ8599F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Smt Nupur Shah, A.R Revenue by : Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT.D.R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 18/08/2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronounce…

M/S. Surzlon Global Services Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 67/AHD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 67-68/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2016-2017 & 2017-2018 M/S. Suzlon Global Services Limited, Principal Commissioner 5 Suzlon, Shrimali Society, Vs. Of Income-Tax, Near Shree Krishna Centre, Ahmedabad. Nr. Judges Bunglow Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aaics1406R

For Appellant: Shri T.P. Hemani Sr.Advocate, &For Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(2)Section 32

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ D’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 67-68/AHD/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2016-2017 & 2017-2018 M/s. Suzlon Global Services Limited, Principal Commissioner 5 Suzlon, Shrimali Society, Vs. of Income-tax, Near Shree Krishna Centre, Ahmedabad. Nr. Judges Bunglow Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380009. PAN: AAICS1406R (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri T.P. Hemani Sr.Advocate, & Shri Parimal Sinh Parm…

M/S Hinal Estate Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 10, Mumbai

ITA 7938/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.7938 /Mum/2019 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Hinal Estate Private Ltd. Principal Commissioner Of A-1 Hinal Estate, Patel Wadi, Vs. Income Tax-10, Room No. 416, 4Th Floor, S.V. Road, Borivali West, Mumbai – 400 057 Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Pan No. Aabch6287J (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri. Naresh Jain, A.R Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Raj, D.R Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/03/2021

For Appellant: Shri. Naresh Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 68

…14. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Alagendran Finance Limited (2007) 293 ITR 1 (SC) and the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. M/s Lark Chemicals Ltd. (2014) 368 ITR 655 (Bom). In the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, it was held by the Hon‟ble Courts that as the issue on which the CIT was seeking to exercise his jurisdiction under ITA No.7938/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2009-10 M/s Hinal Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT-10 13 Sec. 263 of the Act was concluded by virtue of an intimation under Sec. 143(1) of the Act thus, the period…

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

…ct. 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. Therefore, one of the conditions of section 263 of the Act is…

Ultratech Cement Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - Central - 1, Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2999/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhita No. 3000/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ita No. 3001/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde &For Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja, D.R
Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 263(2)Section 80I

…and 31.03.2016 respectively for both the assessment years. The ld. A.R in defence as arguments and propositions relied on a series decision namely...........(D) • Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. vs. ACIT [2010] (325 ITR 574) (Born) • CIT vs. Lark Chemicals Ltd.[201 3] (368 ITR 655) (Born) • L.G. Electronics India (P.) Ltd. vs. PCIT [2014] (388 ITR 135) (All) • Indira Industries vs. PCIT [2018] (95 taxrnann.com 103) (Mad) • Century Textiles & Industries Ltd.vs. DCIT [2011](138 TTJ 83) (Mum) • Tanuj Holdings (P.) Ltd. vs. DOlT [2017] (88 taxrnann.com 385) (Kol) • Arvind Laxmidas Kabrawala (HUF) Vs. ACIT [2011] (12 taxman.com…

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

…s regard, the ld. CIT noted that the assessee has referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd. 293 ITR 1 [2007] as well as the Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Lark Chemicals Ltd. 368 ITR 655 (Bom). Both these case laws had expounded that the Commissioner could not exercise his 4 revisionary power u/s. 263 on items which were not the subject matter of reassessment. The ld. CIT distinguished these orders on the ground that because of Explanation 3 inserted below section 147, it provided that the reassessment can be done on any issu…

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

…the invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 263 was barred by limitation. Accordingly we answer the question of law in the affirmative” 16. Similarly, Hon’ble Bombay High Court in another latest decision in the case of CIT vs. Lark Chemicals Ltd [2014] 368 ITR 655 (Bombay) has considered another decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Anderson Marine & Sons (P.) Ltd. [2004] 266 ITR 694 and held as under:- “12. We have considered the rival submissions. It is not disputed that save and except the issue of non-genuine purchases all other issues dealt with by the Commissioner of Income-tax…

Janata Industries, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 21, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4025/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalm/S. Janata Industries 162, Janata Compound Tulsi Pipe Road, Senapati Bapat Marg ……………. Appellant Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013 Pan – Aaafj4875E V/S Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–21, Mumbai M/S. Janata Industries 162, Janata Compound Tulsi Pipe Road, Senapati Bapat Marg ……………. Appellant Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013 Pan – Aaafj4875E V/S Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–21, Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. ParikhFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Patankar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(2)

…ugned order under section 263 of the Act was passed on 30th March 2017. Thus, the order is barred by limitation. In support of such contentions, the learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Lark Chemicals Ltd. [2014] 368 ITR 655 (Bom.); and ii) LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v/s PCIT, [2016] 388 ITR 135 (All.). 5. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, the learned Authorised Representative submitted, during the original assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has enquired into and examined all issues, including, the claim of depreciation on the building.…

Sarda Mines Pvt. Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-05(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 867/KOL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 867/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd...............................………………………………………………Appellant 6Th Floor, Circular Court, 8, Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan : Aahcs 2419 R] D.C.I.T., Cir 5(2) Kolkata………………………………………………......................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 69 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Gupta, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Md. Usman, Cit Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 21, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Cit – 2, Kolkata Dated 28.03.2017 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: “1. For That The Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata (In Short ‘Cit’) Dated 28.03.2017 Is Without Jurisdiction & Illegal As None Of The Condition Precedent For Exercise Of The Power Under Section 263 Of The Act Exists And/Or Has Been Satisfied & As Such The Said Order Is Erroneous & Without Jurisdiction & Liable To Be Cancelled. 2. For That The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Was Not In Any Way Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & As Such The Cit Would Not Exercise Any Power Under Section 263 Of The Act. The Cit Erred In Holding That The Order Of Assessment Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue.

Section 263Section 35A

…llowing the aforesaid judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the Bombay High Court in the case Ashok Buildcon Ltd. vs ACIT reported in 325 ITR 547. We also rely on the judgement of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Lark Chemicals Ltd. reported in 368 ITR 655. Copies of the above judgements are annexed and marked as Annexure 1, 2 and 3 respectively. 1.(c). It is therefore, submitted that the proceedings initiated vide the notice are barred by limitation as the original order of assessment was passed on 24.12.2009. This is clearly held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and Bombay High Court as abov…