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.

Marougen Edu Foundation, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 163/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Marougen Edu Foundation, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax No.17/1, Campbell Road, Austin Town, (Central), Bengaluru – 560 047. Bengaluru. Pan : Aabtm 0820 F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.03.2021 Of The Pr.Cit (Central), Bengaluru, Relating To Ay 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Is A Society Registered Under The Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. For Assessment Year 2016-17, The Assessee Filed Return Of Income Declaring Nil Income. In The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Issued A Notice Dated 03.12.2018 In Which The Ao Pointed Out That There Was A Survey Under Section 133A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) Conducted In The Premises Of The Assessee On 03.11.2016. The Ao Has Also Mentioned In The Said Notice That The Documents Impounded At The Time Of Survey Show That The Assessee Which Claims Exemption Under Page 2 Of 8

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/s. Marougen Edu Foundation, Vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax No.17/1, Campbell Road, Austin Town, (Central), Bengaluru – 560 047. Bengaluru. PAN : AABTM 0820 F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA Respondent by : Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru Date of hearing : 13.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 14.09.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan, Vice President: This is an appeal by the assessee agains…

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. Pr.CIT, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4/JPR/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 04/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shree Cement Limited, Cuke Pr.Cit, Vs. Bangur Nagar, Post Box No. 33, Udaipur. Beawar. Pan No.: Aaccs 8796 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Dilip Desai (Ca) Shri Vijay Shah (Ca) Shri Mohit Choudhary (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit, Udaipur Dated 03.02.2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – Udaipur, (Here- In- After Referred To As Ld. Pr. Cit) Was Not Justified In Initiating Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Since The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Desai (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ratio decided by the Hon’ble Courts in case of CIT Vs. Green World Corporation 314 ITR 81 (SC), CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 332 ITR 231 (Delhi), CIT-8, Bombay v. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. 372 ITR 303 (Bombay) and CIT v. Reliance Communication Ltd (2017) 396 ITR 217, we are of the considered view that it is not a fit case of invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act. Therefore, we set aside the order of the ld. Pr. CIT and restore the assessment order on this issue in the light of the above deliberations. Thus Ground No. 1, 2 and 3 (a) of the assessee are allowed” 21. The issue has also been decided…

Kailashchandra Khandelwal, Sendhwa vs. Pr. CIT -2, Indore

ITA 562/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Kailash Khandelwal Pr. Cit-2, Prop. M/S. Vikash Krishi Indore बनाम/ Seva Kendra, Bus Stand, Vs. Sendhwa, Barwani (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Acmpk2991E Appellant By Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Vijay Bansal, Nisha Lahoti, Ars Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 44A

…अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE MANISH BORAD,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND HON'BLE’ MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Kailash Khandelwal Pr. CIT-2, Prop. M/s. Vikash Krishi Indore बनाम/ Seva Kendra, Bus Stand, Vs. Sendhwa, Barwani (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. ACMPK2991E Appellant by Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Vijay Bansal, Nisha Lahoti, ARs Revenue by Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 8.04.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 30.04.2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M: By way of this appeal, the appell…

M/S Ruchi J Oil Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT(A)Ujjain, Ujjain

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/IND/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2014-15

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)Section 92C

…mination can be directed by the Commissioner only after coming to the conclusion that the earlier finding of the Income tax Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue” [At Page 117(D)] b) CIT vs. Reliance Communications Ltd (2017) 396 ITR 217 (Bom.) Held “Tribunal noted that Assessing Officer had made detailed enquiries about aforesaid aspect and mere fact that he did not make any reference to said issue in assessment order, could not make said order erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenues - Accordingly, Tribunal set aside revisional order - Whether finding recorded by Tribu…

Shri. Chandrakant R Agrawal, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT (A)-30, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 380/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodshri Chandrakant R. Agrawal Pr. Commissioner Of 61, Sadhna Daftary Road, Income-Tax (Central) -30, R. No. 541, 5Th Floor, Malad East, Vs. Mumbai – 400097 Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai Pan – Aabpa8047N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 57

…ITA No.380/Mum/2020 A.Y. 2015-16 1 Shri Chandrakant R. Agrawal Vs. PCIT (Central)-30 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member and Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member Shri Chandrakant R. Agrawal Pr. Commissioner of 61, Sadhna Daftary Road, Income-tax (Central) -30, R. No. 541, 5th Floor, Malad East, Vs. Mumbai – 400097 Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai PAN – AABPA8047N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Dr. K. Shivaram, Senior Advocate Respondent by: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R Date of Hearing: 20.01.2021 Date of Pronounc…

Play Games 24 X 7 Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr. .CIT-(A) 13, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3910/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Dhamija
Section 263

…i) Globus Infocom Ltd. v. CIT (2014) 369 ITR 14 (Del) Furthermore, following case laws have been referred :- i) Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC); ii) CIT v. Max India (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC); iii) CIT v. Reliance Communication Ltd., 396 ITR 217 (Bom); and, iv) Spectra Shares & Scrips (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, 354 ITR 35 (AP) Lastly, it has been submitted that insertion of Explanation 2 by the Finance Act 2015 has not diluted the basic requirement of the section which still needs to be satisfied before invoking the revision jurisdiction. In this regard, following case laws have been relied :-…

Satyanarayan Sharma, Indore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Indore

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

ITA 426/IND/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 154oSection 2Section 263Section 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year:2013-14 Satyanarayan Sharma, Pr.CIT-I, 11/2, South Tukoganj, Indore बनाम/ Swapnalok Colony, Vs. Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.AEAPS5126D Appellant by Shri Girish Agrawal & Miss Nisha Lahoti, ARs Revenue by Smt. Ashima Gupta, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 11.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 28.12.2020 आदेश / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Pr. Commissione…

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

…Goldmohar Desine and Apparel Park Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT-7 1 ITA No.3971/Mum/2017 A.Y 2012-13 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri S.Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member and Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member Goldmohar Design and 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) Appellant by: Shri Vipul Joshi, Ms. Dinkle Hariya & Shri Divyesh Fataria, A.Rs Respondent by: Shri. T. Kipgen & Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, D.Rs Date of He…

Acc Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT(Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 977/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/wFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 263

…ssing Officer. In this context, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Honda Siel Power Products Ltd., [2011] 333 ITR 547 (Del.); ii) CIT v/s Nirma Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd., [2009] 309 ITR 67 (Guj.); and iii) CIT v/s Reliance Communication Ltd., 396 ITR 217 (Bom.). 19. Further, the leaned Counsel for the assessee submitted, if the view taken by the Assessing Officer on a particular issue one of the possible view, power under section 263 of the Act cannot be exercised. For this proposition, leaned Counsel for the assessee relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Max India Ltd., [2007] 295 I…

Sanjay Kumar Daryani, Indore vs. Pr CIT -1, Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 563/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjay Kumar Daryani Pr. Cit-1 505, Emerald Court C-Block Indore बनाम/ Sanjana Park Vs. Near Agrawal Public School Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aiopd3135D

Section 143(3)Section 263

…9. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. (1987) 34 Taxman 443 (MP) 10.Ashish Rajpal (2009) 180 Taxman 623 (Delhi) 11. Hindustan Marketing & Advertising Co. Ltd. (2011) 196 Taxman 368 Delhi. 12. Anil Shah (2007) 162 Taxman 39 (Mum.) (Mag) 13. Reliance Communication Ltd. (2016) 69 Taxmann.com 103 (Bombay) [ITA No.563/Ind/2019] [Shri Sanjay Kumar Daryani, Indore] 5. Ld. CIT(DR) opposed these submissions and submitted that a fair perusal of assessment order would make it clear that there was no enquiry by the A.O. in respect of the issue in question i.e. difference amount of Rs.55,33,00,000/- being the value adopted by the stamp…

Rpw Projects P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3836/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rpw Projects Private Limited Principal Commissioner Of (Earlier Known As Essel Rpw Income Tax Circle-8, Room Vs. Projects Private Limited 135, No. 611, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Continental Building Dr. Annie Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai- 400020. 400018. Pan No. Aaecm1665J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Dr. K. Shivram, Sr. Advocate & : Mr. Rahul Hakani, Ar Revenue By : Mr. A.K. Srivastava, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/12/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2019

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. A.K. Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…. This power of Revision can be exercised only where no inquiry as RPW Projects 7 required under the law is done. It is not open to enquire in case of inadequate inquiry.” The Ld. counsels also rely on the decision in CIT v. Reliance Communication Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 217 (Bom.) (HC) (220), CIT v. Reliance Communication Ltd. [2017] 244 Taxman 55 (SC), Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. v. CIT (2009) 121 ITD 343 (Chennai) (SB) (Trib), Geevee Enterprises v. Add. CIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) (HC), CIT v. Ralson Inds. (2007) 288 ITR 322 (SC), CIT v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 161 (Bom) (HC), CIT v. Shree Manjunatheware…

Olive Hospitals Private Limited, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-16(3), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 770/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Olive Hospitals Pvt Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner Hyderabad. Of Income Tax-4, Pan: Aabco 0749 G Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri D.V.Anjaneyulu Revenue By: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.01.2019 Order Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.:

For Appellant: Sri D.V.AnjaneyuluFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35A

…ons of section 263 of the Act are not satisfied and the revision order needs to be set-aside. He relied upon the following decisions in support of the above contention: 1. MOIL Ltd vs. CIT [2017] 396 ITR 244 (Bom.) 2. CIT vs. Reliance Communication Ltd [2017] 396 ITR 217 (Bom.) 3. CIT vs. Nirav Modi [2016] 390 ITR 292 (Bom.) 4. Lanco Kondapalli Power Ltd vs. JCIT [2014] 152 ITD 132 5. CIT and Another Vs. Gokuldas Esports, Paprika, Weal Monumertal Memorials [2011] 333 ITR 214 6. CIT vs. G.K. Kabra [1995] 251 ITR 707 (Cal.) 7. Unipro Techno Infrastructure (P) Ltd vs. PCIT (2017) 185 TTJ 205 8. Jeewanlal Ltd vs. ACI…

Neptune Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(1)-3, Mumbai

ITA 2852/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2018AY 2006-07
For Appellant: S/Shri Mayur Kishnadwala; Sunil K. RamaniFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Sanjay-CIT-DR
Section 143Section 263

…ent of the order being erroneous.In the case under consideration,the CIT has not proved that as to how the treatment given to both the items,by the assessee,was erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In the matter of Reliance Communication Ltd.(396 ITR 217)the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has dealt with the issue of not mentioning of certain facts in the order by the AO after making inquries and justification of initiation of revisionary proceedings by the CIT.Deciding the matter,the Hon’ble Court held as under: “…..it was evident from the assessment order that the Assessing Officer had not only made…

Reliance Money Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3259/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri B Puresh
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263Section 50

…P. CIT has not stated as to how the AO has not dealt with the Addl.CIT directions by observing that there was no inquiry on those issues. Besides ,the ld. AR relied on the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT V/s Reliance Communication Ltd 69 Taxmann.com 103 (Bom) submitting that the AO was not liable to make any reference to each and every item/issue 14 I . T . A . N o . 3 2 5 9 / M u m / 2 0 1 7 dealt with during the course of assessment proceedings. The mere fact that AO did not make any reference/discussion in the assessment order would not render an assessment order erroneous. The said d…