How many judgments cite CIT v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd.?

61 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. (231 ITR 50), spanning 2007 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 147, Section 115BBE, Section 143(3), Section 144B, Section 148.

CIT v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd.

231 ITR 50Supreme Court of India1998#1864 most cited

What is CIT v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. authority for?

The Commissioner's revisional powers under Section 263, as clarified by Explanation (c) of Section 263(1) (retrospectively inserted by the Finance Act, 1989), extend to and are deemed always to have extended to matters that were not considered and decided in an appeal. This means the CIT can revise an order even if it was appealed, provided the specific issue under revision was not part of the appeal proceedings.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. · 231 ITR 50 · Section 263 · Section 263(1) · Explanation (c) to Section 263(1) · revisional power · matters not considered in appeal · doctrine of merger · Finance Act 1989 retrospective amendment · scope of revisional power

Sections most often in play

Section 263 Section 147 Section 115BBE Section 143(3)Section 144B Section 148 Section 10(23BBA)Section 10(38)

Issues it is cited on

section 263(2)section 147(b)doctrine of merger section 147(a)section 263(1)section 17 erroneous and prejudicial section 22 income escaping assessment section 34 section 263 section 26

Judgments citing CIT v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd.

CUARZO,UDAIPUR vs. PR. CIT,, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 347/JODH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blecuarzo Principal Commissioner Of G-1, G-1-90-93, Sukher Girwa Income Tax Udaipur - 313004 Udaipur - 313001 Pan No. Aahfc 3351 P Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari, Ca (Physical) Revenue By Smt. Runi Pal, Cit-Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Udaipur [Hereinafter Referred To As Pcit] Dated 04.03.2025 With Respect To Assessment Year 2020-21 Challenging Therein Initiation Of Proceedings U/S 263 After The Assessment Having Achieved Finality Under Direct Taxes Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 & That The Order In Form 4 Having Already Been Issued For Settlement Of Issues In The Assessment.

Section 263Section 80G

…t invoke jurisdiction u/s 263 against such an order, which has merged into the appellate order. Our view gets 3 Asst. Year: 2020-21 support from the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the following cases:  CIT Vs. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. (1998) 231 ITR 50 (SC)  CIT Vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd. (2007) 298 ITR 1 (SC)  CIT Vs. Vam Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 414 ITR 715 (Del.) 6. In the present case, it is pertinent to mention that the PCIT had itself issued Form 4 on 19.02.2025 to the effect of finalization of declaration made by the assessee for the benefit under VSVS Scheme, 2024, and thus,…

SANJAY SINGH RANA,DELHI vs. PCIT, DELHI-20, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3463/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…issue, has followed the decisions of the hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases. 23. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court has referred to the earliest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd 231 ITR 50 wherein the hon’ble Supreme Court interpreted the explanation (c) of section 263(1) as under: "The consequence of the said amendment made with retrospective effect is that the powers under Section 263 of the Commissioner shall extend and shall be deemed always to have extended to such Page 10 of 14 ITA No. 3463/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2015-16] Sanjay Si…

SRI EDUPAYALA VANA DURGA BHAVANI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

ITA 399/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us:

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 69A

…t, where such order has been carried in appeal by the assessee. We find that the said issue is squarely covered by the Judgment of the Hon’ble 13 Sri Edupayala Vana Durga Bhavani Supreme Court in the case of CIT, Gujarat-1 Vs. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd., (1998) 231 ITR 50 (SC) and, thus, is no more res-integra. The Hon’ble Apex Court, had held that the powers of the CIT under Section 263 of the Act shall extend, and shall, deemed always to have extended to such matters as had not been considered and decided in an appeal. For the sake of clarity, we deem it apposite to cull out the observations of the Honble Apex co…

HSBC SECURITIES AND CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MUMBAI-4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2586/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. Krupa Gandhi, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, Ld. D.R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 154Section 263

…matter of assessment were the same. They were not. 13. It may be of some interest to notice that a similar contention raised at the instance of an assessee was rejected by a 3-Judge Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. [231 ITR 50]. This Court took note of the amendment made in Section 263 of the Act by the Finance Act, 1989 with retrospective effect from June 1, 1988, inserting Explanation (c) to Sub-section (1) of Section 263 of the Act stating: "The consequence of the said amendment made with retrospective effect is that the powers under section 263 of the Commissioner s…

AMALSAD VIBHAG VIVISH KARYAKARI SAHKARI KHEDUT MANDLI LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.PCIT, VALSAD

ITA 491/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.491/Srt/2024 Ays: 2018-19 (Physical Court Hearing) Amalsad Vibhag Vividh Principal Commissioner Of Karyakari Sahkari Khedut Income Tax, Valsad, 301/3Rd Vs. Mandli Ltd., At & Po. Floor, Palak Arcade, Shanti Amalsad, Tal. Gandevi, Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-396 Dist. Navsari-396 310 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaaa 1043 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri P.M Jagasheth, Ca राज" की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 17.12.2024 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2025

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57Section 80P

…) nor decided by CIT(A). The issue before CIT(A) was allowability of deduction u/s 80P(2) and not netting of interest income u/s 56 r.w.s. 57 of the Act. He derived support from the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd., 231 ITR 50 (SC) and CIT vs. Jaykumar B Patil, 236 ITR 469 (SC). 4.3. In view of the above facts and decisions, the Ld. PCIT concluded that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. He set aside the assessment order passed by the AO with a direction to pass a fresh assessment order after taking into consideration the…

AUTHORGEN TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNJAB vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 541/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 541/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Authrogen Technologies Vs. The Pcit, बनाम Chandigarh-1, Private Limited, Chandigarh C-203, 8Th Floor, World Tech Power, Industrial Area, Phase Viii, Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadca0494Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent (Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri K M Gupta, Advocate & Shri Jaskaran Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri K M Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 263(2)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 541/CHD/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Authrogen Technologies Vs. The PCIT, बनाम Chandigarh-1, Private Limited, Chandigarh C-203, 8th Floor, World Tech Power, Industrial Area, Phase VIII, Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN No: AADCA0494Q अपीलाथ"/ APPELLANT ""यथ"/ REPSONDENT (PHYSICAL HEARING ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri K M Gupta, Advocate & Shri Jaskaran Singh, Advocate राज"व…

M/S SUNSMART TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 173/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha. Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 173/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Sunsmart Technologies Principal Commissioner Of Pvt Ltd., V. Income Tax-3, 25 Yellow Buildings, Chennai-34. 25 R.K. Salai, V Floor Opp. Hsbc Bank, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004 [Pan: Aajcs-7454-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Ms. Lekha, Ca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Ravi Babu, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31.10.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2023

For Respondent: Shri. Ravi Babu, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 263(1)Section 40

…ount, was an error, that could be corrected under section 263. The above case is pari materia with the current case.  In the above ruling, a reference has also been made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. Reported in 231 ITR 50(SC) which has confirmed the order of the Hon'ble High Court.  The appellant has relied upon the following case laws: (i) Smt.Renuka Philip vs. ITO (2018) 409 ITR 567 (Mad.) (ii) CIT vs Varn Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. No.107 of 2015 (HC Allahabad)  In the case of Smt.Renuka Philip, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Madras, the substantial…

VINAY BAWRI,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 42/GTY/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati22 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 153(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 263Section 263(1)

…ualisation fund and this was not a case where subject matter of assessment and subject matter of re-assessment was same. The Hon’ble Apex Court while passing the order has relied on the decision of Coordinate Bench in the case of CIT –vs.- Arbuda Mills (1998) 231 ITR 50 (SC). Similar ratio as laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT –vs,- ICICI Bank Limited(Supra) wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that where the jurisdiction under section 263(1) of the Act is sought to be exercised with reference to an issue which is covered by the original order of assessment under section 143(3…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. M/S K M KHADIM AND CO

ITAT/148/2023HC Calcutta17 Jul 2023

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 17Th July, 2023 Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. …For Appellant The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.12.2022 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata (The Tribunal) In Ita/278/Kol/2022 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration : 1. Whether On The Facts Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Tribunal Was Justified In Quashing The Order Under Section 263 Of The Said Act Ignoring The Fact That The Assessing Officer In His Order Under Section 143[3] Read With Section 263 Dated 23.12.2019 Concluded That Rs.3,63,122/- Should Be Added As

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 263

…OD - 1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/148/2023 IA NO: GA/1/2023, GA/2/2023 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA VS M/S K M KHADIM AND CO BEFORE : THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 17TH July, 2023 Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. …for appellant The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 21.12.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate T…

ZULU MERCHANDISE (P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT 2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 380/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2Section 249Section 253Section 263Section 3Section 5

…alization fund and this was not a case where subject matter of assessment and subject matter of re-assessment were same. The Hon’ble Apex Court while passing the order has relied on the decision of Coordinate Bench in the case of CIT –vs.- Arbuda Mills (1998) 231 ITR 50 (SC). Similar ratio as laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT –vs,- ICICI Bank Limited(Supra) wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that where the jurisdiction under section 263(1) of the Act is sought to be exercised with reference to an issue which is covered by the original order of assessment under section 143(3…

KROSS LIMITED,JAMSHEDPUR vs. PCIT, RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 34/RAN/2022[12-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jun 2023

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH: RANCHI VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No.34/Ran/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Kross Limited Vs. Pr. CIT, Ranchi (PAN: AABCK 5855 D) ( अपीलाथ" ) Respondent / (""यथ") Appellant / 22.03.2023 Date of Hearing / सुनवाई क" "त"थ Date of Pronouncement / 31.05.2023 आदेश उ"घोषणा क" "त"थ For the Appellant / Shri Miraj D Shah, A.R "नधा#$रती क" ओर से For the Respondent / Smt. Rinku Singh, CITDR राज(व क" ओर से ORDER/ आदेश Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: The present appeal is directed at the instan…

AGROH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS P LTD,MHOW vs. PR CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 95/IND/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Agroh Infrastructure Pr. Cit (Central) Developers Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal Aqua Point, A.B.Road, Vs. Umaria, Mhow, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaeca 2752 L Assessee By Shri Manish Mittal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.04.2023

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

…groh Infrstructure Developers P. Ltd. Page 10 of 16 13. It may be of some interest to notice that a similar contention raised at the instance of an assessee was rejected by a 3-Judge Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. [231 ITR 50]. This Court took note of the amendment made in Section 263 of the Act by the Finance Act, 1989 with retrospective effect from June 1, 1988, inserting Explanation (c) to Sub-section (1) of Section 263 of the Act stating: "The consequence of the said amendment made with retrospective effect is that the powers under section 263 of the Commissioner s…

M/S JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 274/JPR/2021[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur14 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.274/JPR/2021 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years :2014-15 M/s Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. 3, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. cuke Vs. Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCJ 0763 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Sh. Manish Agarwal(C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Sh. Ajey Malik (CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 15/02/2

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Ajey Malik (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…Utpadak Kendra's case [Tel Utpadak Kendra v. Dy. CST [1981] 48 STC 248.] is also that when an appeal is filed, the appellate authority is seized of the entire order and not only that part of it which is challenged before it. 20 M/S Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. 231 ITR 50 CIT vs. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. (SC): Revision – Doctrine of merger – Powers of Commissioner – Amendment of section 263(1) by Finance Act, 1989, with retrospective effect from 01.06.88 – Effect – Powers of Commissioner of Income Tax shall extend and shall be deemed to have extended to matters not considered and decided in appeal filed by assessee t…

SULPHI SAINUDEEN SUNJU,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ITO WARD 1 & TPS, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 701/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajasekhar, CIT(DR)

Section 115BSection 263Section 68

…addition of Rs.3,99,70,930 is in appeal before the CIT(A) and therefore the provisions of section 263 are not attracted to such issue. In this regard, the ld. AR relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Shri Arduda Mills Ltd., 231 ITR 50 (SC) followed again by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Jaykumar B Patil, 236 ITR 469 (SC). The ld. AR without prejudice submitted that the AO has categorically mentioned that the asset side of the balance sheet exceeds the liabilities side and the credits in the capital account represents income of the FY 2016-17 which substantiates the fa…

NAGJI KESHAVJI RITA,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT , MUMBAI

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

ITA 612/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

Section 115BSection 15BSection 263Section 68

…it is equally necessary that learned CIT(A) should "decide" the matter by giving his appropriate finding. Both the conditions, thus, have to be fulfilled." (emphasis provided) The decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. (231 ITR 50) is applicable in such a situation as in this appeal wherein it was held that powers of the CIT shall be deemed to have extended to matters not considered and decided in appeal. 5.1 Secondly, even the issues before the CIT(A) and in the current revision proceedings are different. For eg,while the issue for consideration before the CIT(A) is that t…

M/S K.M. KHADIM & CO.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/KOL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘‘बी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी संजय शमा" "या"यक सद"य के सम" [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 278/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s K. M .Khadim & Co. Vs. LD. PCIT-1, Kolkata (PAN: AADFK 1139 M) Appellant / (अपीलाथ") Respondent / ( !यथ") 30.11.2022 Date of Hearing / सुनवाई क$ "त&थ Date of Pronouncement/ 21.12.2022 आदेश उ)घोषणा क$ "त&थ For the Appellant/ Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate "नधा"/रती क$ ओर से For the Respondent/ Shri Sudipta Guha, C…

ROCKSALT INTERACTIVE GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 403/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarm/S. Rocksalt Interactive Income Tax Officer, Vs. Games Pvt. Ltd., Ward 3(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan Aafcr3033A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. Respondent By : Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.12.2022 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dt.30.03.2020 Of The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Cit-3, Hyderabad Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 263Section 72Section 73Section 73ASection 74Section 74ASection 80

…63 cannot be resorted to. But in the present case, the order passed by the AO allowing the set off of the brought forward business losses is in utter disregard of the provisions of I.T. Act. Reliance is also placed on the-following case laws: 1. Aruba Mills - 231 ITR 50 Supreme Court 2. Nine Star Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 30 Taxmann.com 57 Hyderabad Tribunal. 3. Venus Woolen Mills 105 Taxmann.com 287 P&H 4. Dharti Dredging & Infra Ltd. 35 Taxmann.com 563 Hyderabad Tribunal 5. Mahalaxmi Liquor Promoters Pvt. Ltd. 29 Taxamann.com 70 Hyderabad Tribunal 6. In the light of the above discussions, the order dated 15.11.2017…

BHAJAN LAL SURESH CHANDRA SARRAF,AJMER vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 135/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Porwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (CIT)

Section 115Section 115BSection 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH ‘A’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 135/JP/2022 Assessment Year : 2018-19. cuke M/s. Bhajan Lal Suresh Chand Principal Commissioner of Vs. Saraf, Income-tax (Central) 5, Batti, Jaipur. Bewar (Ajmer. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AACFB 2942 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh v…

MOHIDEEN GAFOOR,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 1(3), CHENNAI

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

ITA 137/CHNY/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri N V Narayanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

INDIAN CO-OP NETWORK FOR WOMEN LTD,CHENNAI vs. PCIT , CHENNAI

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

ITA 104/CHNY/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Adivarahan, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Maruthu Pandian, CIT

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

Showing 1–20 of 61 · Page 1 of 4