CIT v. Reliance Communication Ltd.

69 Taxmann.com 103High Court2016#3529 most cited

What is CIT v. Reliance Communication Ltd. authority for?

An assessment order is not necessarily erroneous, and therefore not subject to revision under Section 263, simply because it does not explicitly mention an issue that was examined by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. If the Assessing Officer made inquiries and the assessee provided relevant documents, the assessment order cannot be deemed erroneous for lack of examination.

34

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

CIT v. Reliance Communication Ltd. · section 263 · assessment order erroneous · inadequate enquiry · lack of enquiry · revision · section 143(3) · section 153A

Also reported as

396 ITR 217

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153DSection 80IC

Issues it is cited on

ready for usesection 32asection 153(a)section 115osection 10(2)inadequate enquirysection 80icsection 32(1)(iia)assessment order erroneousrevision under section 263lack of enquirymalabar industrial

Judgments citing CIT v. Reliance Communication Ltd.

Raj Impex, Thane vs. PCIT Central Mumbai 1, Mumbai

Accordingly, are rendered as dismissed

ITA 3719/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI BEENNA PILLAI (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 263Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & & & & & & Raj Impex Vs. PCIT Central Mumbai 1 101A Devidarshan Complex Room No. 1001, 10th Floor, Tembi Naka Thane West, Pratishtha Bhavan Old CGO Annex Thane-400601. Maharashi Karve Road, PAN: AALFR6800J Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri. Satish R Mody Revenue by Shri. Umashankar Prasad, CIT. DR Date of Hearing 09/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement 27/10/2025 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER BENCH: The captioned appeals are filed by t…

Raj Impex, Thane vs. PCIT Central Mumbai 1, Mumbai

Accordingly, are rendered as dismissed

ITA 3718/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 263Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 'D' BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI BEENNA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & ITA No. 3713/MUM/2025(AY: 2011-12) & ITA No. 3714/MUM/2025(AY: 2012-13) & ITA No. 3715/MUM/2025(AY: 2013-14) & ITA No. 3716/MUM/2025(AY: 2015-16) & ITA No. 3717/MUM/2025(AY: 2016-17) & ITA No. 3718/MUM/2025(AY: 2017-18) & ITA No. 3719/MUM/2025(AY: 2018-19) Raj Impex 101A Devidarshan Complex Tembi Naka Thane West, Thane-400601. PAN: AALFR6800J (Appellant) Assessee by Revenue by Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement Vs. PCIT Central Mumbai 1 Room No. 1001, 10th Floor, Pratisht…

Raj Impex, Thane vs. PCIT Central Mumbai 1, Mumbai

Accordingly, are rendered as dismissed

ITA 3717/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 263Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & & & & & & Raj Impex Vs. PCIT Central Mumbai 1 101A Devidarshan Complex Room No. 1001, 10th Floor, Tembi Naka Thane West, Pratishtha Bhavan Old CGO Annex Thane-400601. Maharashi Karve Road, PAN: AALFR6800J Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri. Satish R Mody Revenue by Shri. Umashankar Prasad, CIT. DR Date of Hearing 09/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement 27/10/2025 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER BENCH: The captioned appeals are filed by t…

Raj Impex, Thane vs. PCIT Central Mumbai 1, Mumbai

Accordingly, are rendered as dismissed

ITA 3716/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI BEENAPPILLAI (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 263Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & & & & & & Raj Impex Vs. PCIT Central Mumbai 1 101A Devidarshan Complex Room No. 1001, 10th Floor, Tembi Naka Thane West, Pratishtha Bhavan Old CGO Annex Thane-400601. Maharashi Karve Road, PAN: AALFR6800J Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri. Satish R Mody Revenue by Shri. Umashankar Prasad, CIT. DR Date of Hearing 09/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement 27/10/2025 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER BENCH: The captioned appeals are filed by t…

Raj Impex, Thane vs. PCIT Central Mumbai 1, Mumbai

Accordingly, are rendered as dismissed

ITA 3715/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI BEENAPPILLAI (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 263Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & & & & & & Raj Impex Vs. PCIT Central Mumbai 1 101A Devidarshan Complex Room No. 1001, 10th Floor, Tembi Naka Thane West, Pratishtha Bhavan Old CGO Annex Thane-400601. Maharashi Karve Road, PAN: AALFR6800J Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri. Satish R Mody Revenue by Shri. Umashankar Prasad, CIT. DR Date of Hearing 09/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement 27/10/2025 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER BENCH: The captioned appeals are filed by t…

Raj Impex, Thane vs. PCIT Central Mumbai 1, Mumbai

Accordingly, are rendered as dismissed

ITA 3714/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI BEENNA PILLAI (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 263Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & & & & & & Raj Impex Vs. PCIT Central Mumbai 1 101A Devidarshan Complex Room No. 1001, 10th Floor, Tembi Naka Thane West, Pratishtha Bhavan Old CGO Annex Thane-400601. Maharashi Karve Road, PAN: AALFR6800J Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri. Satish R Mody Revenue by Shri. Umashankar Prasad, CIT. DR Date of Hearing 09/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement 27/10/2025 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER BENCH: The captioned appeals are filed by t…

Raj Impex, Thane vs. PCIT Central Mumbai 1, Mumbai

Accordingly, are rendered as dismissed

ITA 3713/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI BEENNA PILLAI (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 263Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & & & & & & Raj Impex Vs. PCIT Central Mumbai 1 101A Devidarshan Complex Room No. 1001, 10th Floor, Tembi Naka Thane West, Pratishtha Bhavan Old CGO Annex Thane-400601. Maharashi Karve Road, PAN: AALFR6800J Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri. Satish R Mody Revenue by Shri. Umashankar Prasad, CIT. DR Date of Hearing 09/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement 27/10/2025 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER BENCH: The captioned appeals are filed by t…

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

…eafre, the Ld. Pr CIT as the revisional authority cannot arrive at conclusions merely on the basis of a subjective exercise and thus not justified in invoking powers under section 263 – please see 390 ITR 292(Bom) (Dept.’s SLP dismissed by SC 389 ITR(st) 42]; 396 ITR 217 (Bom); 462 ITR 44 (Guj)’ and 455 ITR 679(Jhar). VII. The Ld. Pr CIT has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. V. CIT 243 ITR 83(SC) wherein a resolution passed by the board of the company was not placed before the Assessing officer and it was held that there is no material support the claim of the assesse and…

Axis Securities Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT -4, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2736/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain(Jm) & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Am) Axis Securities Limited Pcit-4 Unit 002A & 002B, Agastya Room No. 629 Corporate Park, Pirmal Realty Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Kamani Junction, Kurla-W M.K. Road Mumbai-400 070. Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aabce6263F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin KashinathFor Respondent: Ms. Shabana Parveen
Section 135Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 37Section 80G

…contain reference to an issue examined by the AO does not make the order amenable to revision under section 263 of the Act. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Communication Ltd. [396 ITR 217] wherein it was held as under: "10. In the case before us, the concession of the assessee's authorized representative apart, what the Tribunal found and on all 4 Axis Securities Limited the three items highlighted by Mr. Tejveer Singh is that there were materials before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer made enquiries about the above…

Godrej Agrovet Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-6, Mumbai

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

ITA 2223/MUM/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailgodrej Agrovet Limited, C/O Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp, Esplanade House, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort Mumbai, Mumbai – 400079 ……………. Appellant Maharashtra Pan – Aaacg0617Q V/S Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai -6, Room No.51, 5Th Floor, ……………. Respondent Aaykar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 Maharashtra Assessee By : Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. Adv. Shri Jeet Kamdar, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit - Dr

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 263Section 32Section 35C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Godrej Agrovet Limited, c/o Kalyaniwalla & Mistry LLP, Esplanade House, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort Mumbai, Mumbai – 400079 ……………. Appellant Maharashtra PAN – AAACG0617Q v/s Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai -6, Room No.51, 5th Floor, ……………. Respondent Aaykar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 Maharashtra Assessee by : Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. Adv. Shri Jeet Kamdar, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. DR Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT…

Roop Kumar Chopra, Jaipur vs. PCIT Jaipur 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 264/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Him By The Assessee In Compliance To The Notice Notices Issued To Him U/S 142(1) As Well As U/S 143(2) Of The Act By The Ao As Erroneous In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue For The Purpose Of Section 263 Of The Act & Consequently Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed Dated 01-01-2021 To Be Made Afresh Made Is Most Arbitrarily, Unjust, Untenable & Liable To Be Vacated.’’

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…357 ITR 388 wherein the honorable court held that this section cannot be invoked by ignoring a genuine transactionor on the ground that verification of accounts was needed. The assesseealsoplaces reliance on the case of CIT v/s. Reliance Communication Limited 396 ITR 217. In this judgment it was held that if the AO has inquired into the issue before passing the assessment order, it cannot be said that the assessment order is erroneous merely because reference to the said inquiry was not made in the assessment order. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Sunil Kumar Rastogi v/s CIT 406 ITR 306. In this case h…

Cec-Ubc (Jv), Mumbai vs. PCIT-1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1896/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.1896/Mum./2023 (Assessment Year : 2018-19) CEC-UBC (JV) 02-009, Om Hira Panna Off Link Road, Near Oshiwara Police Station ……………. Appellant Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai 400 102 PAN – AAMFC4013F v/s Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Mumbai-1, Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Vishnu Agarwal Revenue by : Shri R.A. Dhyani Date of Hearing – 05/12/2023 Date of Order – 14/12/2023 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been f…

Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra)Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT -8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1308/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Hiten ChandeFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 253Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.1308/Mum./2021 (Assessment Year : 2015–16) Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) Limited D–26, TTC Industrial Area, MIDC ……………. Appellant Sanpada, P.O. Turbhe Navi Mumbai 400 073 PAN – AAACH1458C v/s Principal Commissioner of Income Tax–8 …………….Respondent Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Hiten Chande Revenue by : Shri Biswanath Das Date of Hearing – 11/05/2023 Date of Order – 13/07/2023 O R D E R The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dat…

Manohar Lal Sarraf and Sons Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…s. 83,79,360/-. In such a scenario, in our opinion, the Ld. Pr. CIT had no jurisdiction under section 263 merely because the Ld. AO did not express his satisfaction in so many words in the assessment order as held in CIT vs. Reliance Communication Ltd. (2017) 396 ITR 217 (Bom). SLP filed by the Department against the decision (supra) has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 389 ITR (St) 39. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the assessee’s case, after considering the material placed by both the parties before us, we have come to the conclusion that assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld.…

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

…12 taxmann.com 445 (Del) and judgment of in the case of CIT vs. DLF Ltd. reported as 350 ITR 555 (Del). The Page 15 of 21 learned counsel as also placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Communication Ltd. 396 ITR 217 (Bom) and CIT vs. Nirav Modi 390 ITR 292 (Bom). 14. Replying to the above the learned CIT(DR) drawing our attention towards impugned notice and order u/s. 263 of the Act submitted that the assessment order was rightly alleged as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as the shares were allotted by the assessee company as huge premi…

Bla Power Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr. Commm of Income Tax-3, Mumbai

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

ITA 1180/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 79

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.1180/Mum./2022 (Assessment Year : 2017–18) BLA Power Pvt. Ltd. 84, Maker Chambers–III ……………. Appellant Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 PAN – AACCB9792P v/s Principal Commissioner …………….Respondent of Income Tax–3, Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Nitesh Joshi Revenue by : Dr. Mahesh Akhade Date of Hearing – 01/12/2022 Date of Order – 28/02/2023 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned ord…

Pr. CIT Circle-2, Mumbai vs. Bharat Prtroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1601/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1601/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Bharat Petroleum बिधम/ Pcit, Circle-2 Corporation Ltd. Room No.344, Aayakar Vs. Taxation Section, Bhavan, M. K. Road, 4Th Floor, Bharat Bhavan 1, Mumbai-400020. 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb2902M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-02 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 21.02.2020 For Assessment Year [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”] 2016-17 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”].

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. MistryFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 32A

…u/s 263 of the Act. For this, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Reliance Communication Ltd. (244 Taxman 55) (SC) and also decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT Vs. Reliance Communication Ltd (396 ITR 217) (Bom) and CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108) (Bom). 5. Per contra, the Ld. CIT-DR opposed the submission of the Ld. Sr. Counsel and has submitted that, the AO has merely called for the calculation in respect of deduction claimed u/s 32AC and that he did not examine in the first place, as to whether the assessee is eligible for deduction o…

Bharat Prtroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT Circle-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for parity of reasons

ITA 1602/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 1602/मुं/2020 ("न. व. 2015-16) आअसं. 1600/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2017-18) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Taxation Section, 4Th Floor, Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aaacb-2902-M ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -2, Room No.344, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/02/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi
Section 10(34)Section 236Section 263Section 32A

…rder, it would not make the assessment order erroneous. To buttress his argument, the ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) CIT vs. Reliance Communication Ltd., 244 Taxman 55(SC) (ii) CIT vs. Reliance Communication Ltd., 396 ITR 217(Bom) (iii) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., 203 ITR 108(Bom) 5 ITA NO.1600/MUM/2020 (A.Y.2017-18) Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. 4.2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the Assessing Officer after examining assessee’s claim of investment allowance accepted the same in scrutiny asses…

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, Circlr-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for parity of reasons

ITA 1600/MUM/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 1602/मुं/2020 ("न. व. 2015-16) आअसं. 1600/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2017-18) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Taxation Section, 4Th Floor, Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aaacb-2902-M ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -2, Room No.344, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/02/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi
Section 10(34)Section 236Section 263Section 32A

…rder, it would not make the assessment order erroneous. To buttress his argument, the ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) CIT vs. Reliance Communication Ltd., 244 Taxman 55(SC) (ii) CIT vs. Reliance Communication Ltd., 396 ITR 217(Bom) (iii) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., 203 ITR 108(Bom) 5 ITA NO.1600/MUM/2020 (A.Y.2017-18) Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. 4.2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the Assessing Officer after examining assessee’s claim of investment allowance accepted the same in scrutiny asses…

Antariksh Realtors P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-12, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 1626/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Saktijit Dey ()

Section 143(3)Section 263

…1 ITA 1626/Mum/2020 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR (VICE PRESIDENT) AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.A. No.1626/Mum/2020 (Assessment year 2015-16) Antariksh Realtors Private Limited vs The Income-tax Officer-12(1)(2), 23, 5th Floor, Dheeraj Plaza, Hill Road Mumbai Bandra (West), Mumbai-400 050 PAN : AAKCS5379G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Shreyash Shah (AR) & Shri Kunal Shah & Shri Ramesh Vora (AR) Respondent by Shri Rajeev Harit [CIT(DR)] Date of hearing 27-07-2021 Date of pronouncement 22-10-2021 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey (JM) Captioned…