How many judgments cite CIT v. LIC Housing Finance Ltd.?

32 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. LIC Housing Finance Ltd. (52 Taxmann.com 164), spanning 2017 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. LIC Housing Finance Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 115JB, Section 115U, Section 14A, Section 244A, Section 271(1)(c), Section 36(1)(vii).

CIT v. LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

52 Taxmann.com 164High Court2014#3750 most cited

What is CIT v. LIC Housing Finance Ltd. authority for?

Revision proceedings under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 cannot be initiated if the Assessing Officer has considered an issue and adopted a view permissible in law.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT vs LIC Housing Finance Ltd · 367 ITR 458 · section 263 · revisionary jurisdiction · permissible view · erroneous assessment · prejudicial to revenue

Also reported as

367 ITR 458

Sections most often in play

Section 115JB Section 115U Section 14A Section 244A Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 50(1)section 80ab section 54e section 70(2)section 10(15)section 80m section 10(33)section 14a(1)section 54ec long-term capital asset section 36(1)(viii)section 111a

Judgments citing CIT v. LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

DCIT Cir 1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Housing Developement Finance Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of both, assessee and revenue are decided

ITA 4161/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and

Section 1

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.4315 and 4316/MUM/2007 Assessment Years: 2002-03 and 2003-04 ITA Nos.3861 and 3862/Mum/2009 Assessment Years: 2004-05 and 2005-06 ITA Nos.5033/Mum/2010, 5442/Mum/2011, 2868/Mum/2012 Assessment Years: 2006-07 to 2008-09 ITA Nos.2093, 5885, 2609, 2610 and 4983/Mum/2017 Assessment Years: 2009-10 to 2013-14 ITA Nos.2665 and 2666/Mum/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 and 2015-16 ITA Nos.1890, 1891, 1892, 1893 and 3717/Mum/2023 and Assessment Years: 201…

Nisarg Associates, Mumbai vs. PCIT Mumbai-20, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 755/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blenisarg Associates V. Ld. Pr.Cit – Mumbai – 20 Room No. 418, Piramal Chambers 1304, Ashok Heights, Near Nicco Circle Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 Nikolas Wadi Road, Gundavalli Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400069 Pan: Aahfn4619F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By Shri Ronak G. Doshi & : Shri Chaitanya D. Joshi Department Represented By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Nisarg Associates V. Ld. Pr.CIT – Mumbai – 20 Room No. 418, Piramal Chambers 1304, Ashok Heights, Near NICCO Circle Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 Nikolas Wadi Road, Gundavalli Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400069 PAN: AAHFN4619F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by Shri Ronak G. Doshi and : Shri Chaitanya D. Joshi Department Represented by : Dr. Mahesh Akhade Date of Hearing : 17.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 05.01.2023 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR R…

Goldmohur Design and Apparel Park Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. Comm. of Income Tax - 7, Mumbai

ITA 3971/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodgoldmohar Design & Pr. Cit-7 R. No. 628, 6Th Floor, Apparel Park Ltd. 145, Goldmohar Mill, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Dada Saheb Phalke Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Dadar (E), Mumbai- 400 014 Pan – Aadcg1613M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri. T. Kipgen &

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…f viz. (i) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom); (ii) Goldmohar Desine and Apparel Park Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT-7 20 ITA No.3971/Mum/2017 A.Y 2012-13 Grasim Industry Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom); (iii) CIT Vs. LIC Housing Finance Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 458 (Bom); (iv) CIT Vs. Gera Development (P) Ltd. (2016) 387 ITR 691 (Bom); and (v) CIT Vs. Kiran Hirji Shah (2015) 56 Taxman.com 360 (Bom). On the basis of his aforesaid contentions, it was the claim of the ld. A.R that if the A.O while framing the assessment had adopted one of the possible view in law, the Pr. CIT was divested of invoking his revis…

Tata Sons Private Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1091/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit 2, 24, Bombay House, Room No.552, Homi Mody Street, Vs. 5Th Floor, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaact4060A M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, A.R. Ms. Arati Vissanji, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.04.2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 57

…nother view. In this regard, reliance is placed on the following decisions: Max India Ltd (295 ITR 282) (SC); Greenworld Corporation (314 ITR 81) (SC); 10 M/s. Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (395 ITR 1) (SC); and LIC Housing Finance Ltd (367 ITR 458) (Bom HC). 10. It is submitted that recently, in Assessee's own case for AY 2012-13 (ITA No 1213/Mum/2018), the Mumbai Tribunal has quashed the order passed by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act by observing that since the AO has considered the same issue during the original assessment proceedings and formed a view permissible under la…

Hi-Rock Construction Co., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4327/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Hi Rock Construction Co. Pr. Cit -32 C-11, 2Nd Floor, 903, A, Gurukul Tower, Cst No. 890, J. S. Road, Dahisar (W), Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Mumbai. Bandra Kurla Complex, Pan: Aaffh6403B Mumbai. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi with Shri Shubham Rathi (AR)For Respondent: Shri B. Srinivas (CIT-DR)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

…ourse permissible, relied upon the decision of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [(2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC)], CIT vs. Max India Ltd. [(2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC)], Grasim Industry Ltd. Vs. CIT [(2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom)], CIT vs. LIC Housing Finance Ltd. [(2014) 367 ITR 458 (Bom)], CIT vs. Kiran Hirji Shah [(2015) 56 taxmann.com 360(Bom)], Micro Inks Limited vs. CIT [(2018) 407 ITR 861 (Guj.)], Sunil Bhandari vs. ACIT [(2013) 141 ITD 10 (Jodhpur Trib.)] & CIT vs. DLF Ltd. [(2013) 350 ITR 555 (Del.)]. 19. On third alternative preposition that no revision under section 263 is permissible, if Assessing Officer condu…

Acc Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 4581/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acc Ltd. (Formerly Known Commissioner Of As The Associated Cement Income Tax-Ltu Vs. Companies Ltd.) Cement Mumbai. House, 121, M.K. Road, Mumbai. Pan No. Aaact1507C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Yogesh Thar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. R.P. Meena, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/10/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. R.P. Meena, CIT DR

Section 263Section 32

…on the decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (243 ITR 83) (SC), CIT v. Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282) (SC), CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108) (Bom HC), CIT v. Grasim Industries Ltd. (2014) 226 Taxman 165 (Bom HC), CIT v. LIC Housing Finance Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 458/272 CTR 10 (Bom HC) and Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom HC). Further the Ld. counsel submits that both conditions of section 263 i.e. order is ‘erroneous’ and ‘prejudicial to the interest of revenue’ are conjuctive. He relies on the decision in CIT v. Greenworld Corporation (181 Taxman 111) (SC), Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v…

Gateway Distriparks(Kerala) Ltd, Cochin vs. ACIT, Cochin

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

ITA 216/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.216/Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Gateway Distriparks (Kerala) Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., Door No. 26/1804, Income-Tax, Circle-1(2), Kochi Chakiat House, Subramaniam Road, Willington Island, Kochi-682 003. [Pan:Aaccg 6616P] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessee By Shri P.M. Veeramani, Ca Revenue By Smt. A.S. Bindhu, Dr Date Of Hearing 14/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2018

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…d for depreciation'. Hence, it was submitted that there was no error in the assessment order in allowing the depreciation as claimed by the assessee. 4.5 The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Bombay High court in the case of CIT v LIC Housing Finance Ltd (367 ITR 458) wherein it was held that merely because the Assessing Officer adopts one of two views possible and that has resulted in loss of revenue it cannot be treated as erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue unless the view taken is unsustainable in law. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Malabar In…

Noble Medicals Bcjc Hospitals, Mumbai vs. CIT City-16, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3207/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Noble Medicals Bcjc Cit, City-16, Hospitals, S.V. Road, Santacruz, Mumbai. Mumbai-400054. Versus Pan No.Aagfn4356A Applicant Respondent

Section 119Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263

…ender the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The reliance is made in case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd. [(2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC)], Grasim Industry Ltd. vs. CIT [(2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom)], CIT vs. LIC Housing Finance Ltd. [(2014) 367 ITR 458 (Bom)], CIT vs. Gera Developments (P) Ltd. [(2016) 387 ITR 691(Bom)] and CIT vs. Kiran Hirji Shah [(2015) 56 taxmann.com 360(Bom)]. In other alternative submission, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that no revisional power should be exercised for directing full enquiry, where the AO has already conducted sufficient enquiry and has taken a possi…

Bibhuti B. Dasgupta (HUF), Mumbai vs. Jt CIT RG 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1435/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhbibhuti B. Dasgupta (Huf), Cit-19, Plot No. 285-286, Nileema, Piramal Chambers, Parel, 12Th Road, Khar (W), Vs. Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400052. Pan: Aaahg1175J (Appellant) (Respondent) Bibhuti B. Dasgupta (Huf), Jt.Cit-Range-19(1), Plot No. 285-286, Nileema, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 12Th Road, Khar (W), Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400052. Pan: Aaahg1175J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vipul Joshi (Ar Revenue By : Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 05 .02.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi (ARFor Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263

…ender the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The reliance is made in case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd. [(2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC)], Grasim Industry Ltd. vs. CIT [(2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom)], CIT vs. LIC Housing Finance Ltd. [(2014) 367 ITR 458 (Bom)], CIT vs. Gera Developments (P) Ltd. [(2016) 387 ITR 691(Bom)] and CIT vs. Kiran Hirji Shah [(2015) 56 taxmann.com 360(Bom)]. 6. In further alternative submission, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that no revisional power should be exercised for directing full enquiry, where the AO has already conducted sufficient enquiry and has taken a…

Bibhuti B. Dasgupta (HUF), Mumbai vs. CIT 19, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5129/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi (ARFor Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263

…ender the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The reliance is made in case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd. [(2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC)], Grasim Industry Ltd. vs. CIT [(2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom)], CIT vs. LIC Housing Finance Ltd. [(2014) 367 ITR 458 (Bom)], CIT vs. Gera Developments (P) Ltd. [(2016) 387 ITR 691(Bom)] and CIT vs. Kiran Hirji Shah [(2015) 56 taxmann.com 360(Bom)]. 6. In further alternative submission, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that no revisional power should be exercised for directing full enquiry, where the AO has already conducted sufficient enquiry and has taken a…

DCIT RG. 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. I.C.I.C.I. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals as well as Revenue’s appeals, all are allowed partly for statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 4826/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2017AY 2000-2001

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Icici Bank Ltd, (Erstwhile Icici Ltd.), Vs. D.C.I.T, Range 3 (1), Icici Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -51 Pan: Aaact 1398K Appellant .. Respondent D.C.I.T, Range 3 (1), Vs. Icici Bank Ltd, (Erstwhile Icici Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-20 Ltd.), Icici Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -51. Pan: Aaact 1398K Appellant .. Respondent

Section 143(3)

…1 to 11.2 of his appellate order. He has further stated that on similar facts, the addition made by AO was confirmed for AY 1998-99. Ld. CIT DR further distinguished the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. LIC Housing Finance Ltd., 367 ITR 458 (Bom). According to him, the ratio of the decision is not applicable because the Hon'ble High Court was deciding validity of the order passed u/s 263 of the Act. It has not decided on the merits of the issue. In the said case, the Tribunal had set aside the order of the CIT u/s 263. The Hon'ble Court decided the issue against the department on th…

Icici Bank Ltd vs. DCIT Range 3(1)

In the result, assessee’s appeals as well as Revenue’s appeals, all are allowed partly for statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 4657/MUM/2004[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2017AY 2000-01

Section 143(3)