How many judgments cite CIT v. Paville Projects (P.) Ltd.?

83 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Paville Projects (P.) Ltd. (149 Taxmann.com 115), spanning 2023 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Paville Projects (P.) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 142(1), Section 143(3), Section 144B, Section 147, Section 1961.

CIT v. Paville Projects (P.) Ltd.

149 Taxmann.com 115Supreme Court of India2023#1385 most cited

What is CIT v. Paville Projects (P.) Ltd. authority for?

Revisiting the stringent two-fold conditions for invoking Section 263, `CIT v. Paville Projects` affirms that mere inadequacy of enquiry by the Assessing Officer does not automatically confer revisional powers. An order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue for Section 263 to apply.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Paville Projects (P.) Ltd. · Section 263 · revisional powers · inadequate enquiry · two-fold conditions · Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · lack of enquiry

Also reported as

2023 SCC OnLine SC 371453 ITR 447293 Taxmann 38

Sections most often in play

Section 263 Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144B Section 147 Section 1961 Section 144 Section 148

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 263of section 124(1)inadequate enquiry malabar industrial revision under section 263 section 263(1)section 124(3)(a)lack of enquiry section 127(1)prejudicial to interest of revenue section 127(2)section 159

Judgments citing CIT v. Paville Projects (P.) Ltd.

Ct. Ramanathan (HUF), Pudukkottai vs. PCIT 1, Madurai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 761/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.761/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21 C.T.Ramanathan(Huf), Income Tax Officer, No.7/45, Ct.Rm.S.House, M.St.S. Street Ward-1, Kulipirai, Pudukottai Dist, Pudukottai. Tamil Nadu-622 402. [Pan: Aaahc0701L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.V.Subbarayan, Dcit(Retd.) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.M.K.Biju, Cir Dr By Virtual. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr.V.Subbarayan, DCIT(Retd.)For Respondent: Mr.M.K.Biju, CIR DR by virtual

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3

…enue. (See ‘Rampyari Devi Saraogiv CIT[(1968) 67 ITR 84(SC)] and in ‘’Tara Devi Aggarwalv.CIT[(1973) 3 SCC 482:1973 SCC (Tax) 318:(1973) 88 ITR 323].) [Emphasis supplied] 26. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Paville Projects (P) Ltd. [2023 SCC OnLine SC 371], while relying upon Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., has discussed the sanctity of two-fold conditions for the purpose of invoking jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. The relevant paragraph of the said decision reads as under:- Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee has heavily relied upon the decision of this Court in…

Micromax Informatics Ltd, New Delhi vs. PCIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2524/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 263

…Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [(1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC)] and in Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [(1973) 3 SCC 482 : 1973 SCC (Tax) 318 : (1973) 88 ITR 323].)" [Emphasis supplied] 26. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Paville Projects (P) Ltd. [2023 SCC OnLine SC 371], while relying 17:06:54 upon Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., has discussed the sanctity of two- fold conditions for the purpose of invoking jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. The relevant paragraph of the said decision reads as under: - "27. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee has heavily relied upon the decision…

N R Corporation, Surat vs. PCIT-1, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 526/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.526/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 (Physical Hearing) N. R. Corporation, Vs. The Pcit - 1, B-202, Capital Status, Opp – Hariom Surat Nagar, Near Atman Park, L. P. Savani Road, Adajan, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aamfn9368A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/05/2025

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 40

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.526/SRT/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 (Physical Hearing) N. R. Corporation, Vs. The PCIT - 1, B-202, Capital Status, Opp – Hariom Surat Nagar, Near Atman Park, L. P. Savani Road, Adajan, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAMFN9368A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Suresh K. Kabra, CA Respondent by Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 13/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement 28/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH,…

Assotech Moonshine Urban Developers P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2524/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 263

Apurva Natvar Parikh & Co. Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

ITA 2646/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…ed during the course of original assessment proceedings. The finding of the Tribunal on this issue has also not been challenged in this appeal." 7.13 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Paville Projects Private Limited, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 371 dated 06-04-2023, held that CIT can revise erroneous order by Assessing Officer causing prejudice to revenue, holding that the erroneous assessment order had resulted in loss of the Revenue in the form of tax. Relevant portions of the order are extracted below for ready reference: “7. In the present case, the Commissioner, in exercise…

Venetian Ldf Projects LLP, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), Gurgaon

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3533/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)

…ITA No. 3533/Del/2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3533/Del./2025, A.Y. 2021-22 Amazon Smart Commerce Solutions Vs. Principal Commissioner of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, H-9, Block B-1, Delhi-1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044, New Delhi PAN: AAECT4063H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate, Smt. Deepashree Rao, Advocate Ms. Ayushi Pragya, Advocate Revenue by Ms. Amish S. Gupt, CIT- DR Date of Hearing 15/01/2026 Date of Pronouncem…

Mohammed Mannan Abdul, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 249/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 69

…ithin his power under section 263 to direct fresh assessment”. This view is also supported by the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd., vs., CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT vs., Paville Projects Pvt. Ltd., [2023] 453 ITR 447 (SC); wherein it has been clearly held that when the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, then, the PCIT has power to revise the assessment order in terms of sec.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the present case, going by the facts available on record, we find that,…

Ms. Shree Waheguru Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Ring Road, Surat vs. PCIT, Aayakar Bhavan, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 402/SRT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.402/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S Shree Waheguru Fashions Principal Commissioner Of बनाम/ Pvt. Ltd., B-1110, Radha Krishna Vs. Income-Tax (Central), Textile Market, Ring Road, Surat Central Circle-1, Surat, Aayakar - 395002 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aahcs 9568 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 263

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.402/SRT/2024 Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Hybrid Hearing) M/s Shree Waheguru Fashions Principal Commissioner of बनाम/ Pvt. Ltd., B-1110, Radha Krishna Vs. Income-tax (Central), Textile Market, Ring Road, Surat Central Circle-1, Surat, Aayakar - 395002 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAHCS 9568 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA राज" की ओर से /Respondent…

Indiabulls Commercial Credit Limited, New Delhi vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2844/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 94(7)

…tion 2 to Section 263 of the Act, the assessment order is deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue." 6.14 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent case of Commissioner of Income Tax v Paville Projects Private Limited, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 371 dated 06-04-2023, held that CIT can revise erroneous order by Assessing Officer causing prejudice to revenue, holding that the erroneous assessment order had resulted in loss of the Revenue in the form of tax. Relevant portions of the order are extracted below for ready reference: “7. In the present case, the Commissioner, in exercise…

Engineering Professional Co. Pvt Ltd, Surat vs. PCIT-1, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 541/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.541/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Engineering Professional Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit -1, 444, Royal Arcade, Opp. Sarthana Zoo, Surat Varachha Road, Near Sarthana Jakatnaka, Surat – 395006, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabce0313Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 13/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/02/2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.541/SRT/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Engineering Professional Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The PCIT -1, 444, Royal Arcade, Opp. Sarthana Zoo, Surat Varachha Road, Near Sarthana Jakatnaka, Surat – 395006, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AABCE0313Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri P. M. Jagasheth, CA Respondent by Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 13/02/2025 Date of Pronouncement 19/02/2025 आदेश / O R D E…

Skill Promoters Holding and Leasing Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 370/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.370/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Skill Promoters Vs. Pcit (Central) Holding & Leasing Hyderabad Private Limited Hyderabad [Pan : Aascs8012P] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B.Bala Krishna,Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 29/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.06.2023 Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) (Ld.Pcit), Hyderabad, Pertaining To A.Y.2019-20 On The Following Grounds : 1. The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 23.06.2023 Is Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Pr.Cit Erred In Holding That The Assessment Order Dated 26.09.2021 Passed U/S 153A Is Erroneous In So 2

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Bala Krishna,CIT-DR

Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 263Section 37

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President and Shri Manjunatha G., Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.370/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/s Skill Promoters Vs. PCIT (Central) Holding and Leasing Hyderabad Private Limited Hyderabad [PAN : AASCS8012P] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,AR रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Shri B.Bala Krishna,CIT-DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of Hearing: 07/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date of 29/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / ORDER PE…

Ankur Goyal, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2524/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 263

Incometax Officer, Ward-3(3), Visakhapatnam vs. Saripalli Vimala Devi, Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 294/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.294/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2015-16) Income Tax Officer - Ward-3(3) Vs. Saripalli Vimala Devi Iind Floor Flat No. 103, Sun N Sea Apartments East Point Colony Infinity Towers Visakhapatnam - 530017 Shankarmatam Road, Santhipuram Visakhapatnam - 530016 Pan: Bddps0883J (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri C. Kameswara Rao, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri C. Kameswara Rao, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 48

…erred in relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. R.M. Arunachalam {(1997) 141 CTR 0348}. The Ld. DR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Paville Projects (P.) Ltd [2023] 453 ITR 447 wherein the Ld. CIT treated the said assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as allowed by the Ld. AO, being the payment made by the assessee-company to its shareholders as encumbrance charges from the sale proceeds of building as cost of improvement while computing the long-term capital gains. The Ld. DR ther…

Sunitha, Coimbatore vs. PCIT -1, Coim, Batore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2013/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2013/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Sunitha, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No.30, Sivaji Colony, Income Tax -1, Thadagam Road, Coimbatore Edayarpalayam, Coimbatore 641 025. [Pan: Bhqps 4789G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, IRS, CIT

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 69

Asian Hotels (North) Limited, New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT, Delhi-1, New Delhi

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

ITA 654/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember M/S. Asian Hotels (North) Limited, Vs. Pr.Cit, 1A, Hotel Hyatt Regency, Delhi – 1. Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi – 110 066. (Pan: Aaaca0125H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Abhishek Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Javed Akhtar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2024 Date Of Order : 26.11.2024 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am : 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi-1 (Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Pcit’) Dated 31.03.2021 For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.09.2016 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.32,48,76,393/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Under Cass. The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143 (3)

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 438

…e Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [(1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC)] and in Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [(1973) 3 SCC 482 : 1973 SCC (Tax) 318 : (1973) 88 ITR 323].)” [Emphasis supplied] 26. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Paville Projects (P) Ltd. [2023 SCC OnLine SC 371], while relying upon Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., has discussed the sanctity of twofold conditions for the purpose of invoking jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. The relevant paragraph of the said decision reads as under:- “27. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee has heavily relied upon the decision of this Cour…

Max Hospitals and Allied Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Mumbai -3, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2907/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2018-19 Max Hospitals & Principal Allied Services Commissioner Of 401, 4Th Floor, Income Tax Mumbai- 3 Man Excellenza, Room No.612, Vs. S. V. Road, 6Th Floor, Vile Parle (W.), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 400056 Maharishi Karve Road, Pan: Aagcr9198D Mumbai- 400020. Appellant : Respondent

For Appellant: RespondentFor Respondent: Ms. Sanyogia Nagpal (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 56(2)(viib)

…s specifically held with reference to the issue consider under revisionary proceedings, invoking provision of section 263 on the same issue is not justified: 1. Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Paville Projects Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2023) 453 ITR 447 2. Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd. reported in (2007) 295 ITR 282 3. Decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi reported in (2017) 390 ITR 292 4. Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Malabar Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in (2000) 243 ITR 83 5. Decision of Hon'ble Bombay High…

T V Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Limited, Madurai vs. DCIT, CC - 2, Madurai

Appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1803/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1803/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-2014. M/S. T.V. Sundram Iyengar & The Deputy Commissioner Sons Private Limited, Vs. Of Income Tax, No.7B, Tvs Building, Corporate Circle 2, West Veli Street. Madurai. Madurai 625 001. Pan: Aabct 0159K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35DSection 391

…re, we endorse the aforesaid submissions of the ld. CIT-DR, Mr. Nilay Baran Som in toto and reject the arguments of the ld. Counsel for the assessee as not tenable in law. The case law relied upon the ld. CIT-DR in the case of CIT vs. Pavile Projects (P) Ltd, 293 Taxmann 38 (SC) is aptly apply in this case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court after taking into consideration the earlier ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industries in the case of Pavile Projects (P) Ltd, 293 Taxmann 38 (SC) held as under: “7.2 Thus, even as observed in paragraph 9 by this Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd.…

Faiveley Transport Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Hosur vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1598/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Ashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80

Sandeep Kumar, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Faridabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1545/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…ee Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [(1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC)] and in Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [(1973) 3 SCC 482: 1973 SCC (Tax) 318: (1973) 88 ITR 323J.)" [Emphasis supplied] 26. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Paville Projects (P) Ltd. [2023 SCC OnLine SC 371], while relying upon Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., has discussed the sanctity of twofold conditions for the purpose of invoking jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. The relevant paragraph of the said decision reads as under:- "27. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee has heavily relied upon the decision of this Cou…

Sandeep Kumar, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Faridabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1542/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263