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.

61

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 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 263Section 147Section 115BBESection 143(3)Section 144BSection 148Section 10(23BBA)Section 10(38)

Issues it is cited on

section 263(2)section 147(b)doctrine of mergersection 147(a)section 263(1)section 17erroneous and prejudicialsection 22income escaping assessmentsection 34section 263section 26

Judgments citing CIT v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd.

Mayur Rice Mills Private Limited, Jhumritelaiya vs. PCIT, Ranchi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/RAN/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi02 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Mayur Rice Mills Private Limited Pr. Cit, Ranchi Gujhandi Road Vs Vill – Barwadih, Jhumritelaiya Pin - 825409 Pan : Aafcm5928H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Pransukha, A/R Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/09/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Ranchi (Hereinafter ‘Ld. Pr. Cit’), Dated 30/03/2022, Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Sole Issue Raised In The Various Grounds Of Appeal Is Against The Invalid Exercise Of Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act By The Ld. Pr. Cit As The Revisionary Proceedings Are Hopelessly Barred By Limitation.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Pransukha, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, CIT, D/R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…ce Mills Private Limited 7 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…

M/S Uma Glass Works, Agra vs. Pr.CIT.-1, Agra

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2014-15 and

ITA 18/AGR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम M/S Uma Glass Works Pcit, 22, Near Industrial Estate, Vs. Agra-1, Firozabad - 283203 Uttar Pradesh.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…I.T.A.Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021/A.Ys.2014-15 & 2015-16 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “DB” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम M/s Uma Glass Works PCIT, 22, Near Industrial Estate, Vs. Agra-1, Firozabad - 283203 Uttar Pradesh. PAN No. AACFU5061D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee by Shri Ranjan Chopra, CA Revenue by Shri Surende Pal, CIT DR सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of hearing: 14.10.2022 02.11.2022 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O…

M/S Uma Glass Works, Firozabad vs. Pr.CIT.-1, Agra

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2014-15 and

ITA 17/AGR/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम M/S Uma Glass Works Pcit, 22, Near Industrial Estate, Vs. Agra-1, Firozabad - 283203 Uttar Pradesh.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…I.T.A.Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021/A.Ys.2014-15 & 2015-16 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “DB” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम M/s Uma Glass Works PCIT, 22, Near Industrial Estate, Vs. Agra-1, Firozabad - 283203 Uttar Pradesh. PAN No. AACFU5061D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee by Shri Ranjan Chopra, CA Revenue by Shri Surende Pal, CIT DR सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of hearing: 14.10.2022 02.11.2022 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O…

Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), -4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1149/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2012-13
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 92C

…sment and subject-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 CIT v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. [1998] 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 1-6- 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 shall…

Sivakumaran Pugazhendhi, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai-4

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 27/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.27/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sivakumaran Pugazhendhi, The Principal Commissioner 70 Raja Agraharam Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Poonamalle, Chennai-4. Chennai – 600 056. [Pan: Aiapp-7309-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2022 : 21.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 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…

Deepak Bajaj, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 40(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 569/KOL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 263

…t a case where subject 11 AY: 2009-10 Deepak Bajaj 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…

M/S. Ravi Foundation, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-17, Mumbai

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

ITA 884/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Ms. Arati AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar (Sr. AR)
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 263(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.884/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11) बनधम/ M/s. Ravi Foundation PCIT-17 Room No.120, 1st Floor, 76, Laxmi Palace, Vs. Mathuradas Road, Kandivali Kautilya Bhawan, C-41 (W), Mumbai-400067. to C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAAFR2515F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Ms. Arati Aggarwal Revenue by: Shri T. Shankar (Sr. AR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 29…

Alkem Laboratories Ltd, Patna vs. Pr. CIT-1, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 23/PAT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 154Section 263Section 263(1)Section 35

…alisation 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…

Alkem Laboratories Ltd, Patna vs. Pr. CIT-1, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 22/PAT/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 154Section 263Section 263(1)Section 35

…alisation 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…

Barclays Bank Plc, Mumbai vs. CIT (International Taxation)-Range-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 827/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 263Section 37

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Amarjit Singh (JM) I.T.A. No.827/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year 2013-14) Vs. CIT(IT), Range-1 Barclays Bank PLC 9th Floor, Building No.6 17th Floor Nirlon Knowledge Park Room No.1704, Air Off. Western Express India Building Highway Nariman Point Goregaon (E) Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 63 PAN : AAACB4876G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri P.J.Pardiwala & Madhur Agarwal Department by Shri Sanjay Singh Date of Hearing 04.10.2021 Date of 03.01.2022 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- This appeal by…

Institute of Chemical Technology, Mumbai vs. ACIT (E)- I(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3522/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2021AY 2008-09
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…sment and subject-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 CIT v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. [1998] 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 1-6-1988, 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 shall…

Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Burla vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 141/CTK/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.141/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur Jagruti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768020 Pan No. : Aabcm 5188 P (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Poddar, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, Dated 21.04.2020 For The Assessment Year 2015-2016, On The Following Grounds :- 1. That The Notice Issued & Order Passed U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Sambalpur (Pr. Cit) Is Unjustified, Arbitrary, Excessive, Contrary To Evidences & Bad In Law. 2. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Pr. Cit Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Assuming Jurisdiction In Issuing The Notice & Passing The Order U/S.263 Of The Act, More So When The Assessment Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Act Is Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue. 3. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Pr. Cit Has Further Erred In Law & In Facts In Assuming Jurisdiction In Issuing The Notice & Passing The Order U/S.263 Of The Act, As The Subject Matter Of Proceedings U/S.263 Of The Act Were Duly Considered By The Ld. Assessing Officer During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings & The Assessment Order Was Passed After Making All The Enquiries & Verification & With Due Application Of Mind.

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Poddar, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…er passed therein by the Assessing Officer was erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 10 Moreover, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Jayakumar B. Patii [1999J 236 ITR 469 (SC) and CIT v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. [1998]231 ITR 50, has held that the Commissioner has jurisdiction and powers to initiate proceedings under section 263 in respect of issues not touched by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his appellate order. Clause (c) of Explanation 1 of sub- section (1) provides that for removal of doubts it is hereby declared that, for the purpose of the said sub-section,- "(c) w…

Vikas Oil Products, Dausa vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 28/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 263

…did not merge with the order of the first appellate authority as the subject-matter of appeal before the first appellate authority was different. Therefore, on the basis of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Shri Arhuda Mills Ltd. [1998] 231 ITR 50/98 Taxman 457 and Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works case (supra), the Tribunal was not correct in holding that there was a merger of the order of the ITO with the order of Commissioner (Appeals) precluding the Commissioner from exercising his revisional powers. Our answer to the second question of law also is in the negative a…

Om Industries, Dausa vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur, Jiapur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 27/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 263

…did not merge with the order of the first appellate authority as the subject-matter of appeal before the first appellate authority was different. Therefore, on the basis of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Shri Arhuda Mills Ltd. [1998] 231 ITR 50/98 Taxman 457 and Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works case (supra), the Tribunal was not correct in holding that there was a merger of the order of the ITO with the order of Commissioner (Appeals) precluding the Commissioner from exercising his revisional powers. Our answer to the second question of law also is in the negative a…

Jr Industries, Dausa vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 26/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 263

…did not merge with the order of the first appellate authority as the subject-matter of appeal before the first appellate authority was different. Therefore, on the basis of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Shri Arhuda Mills Ltd. [1998] 231 ITR 50/98 Taxman 457 and Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works case (supra), the Tribunal was not correct in holding that there was a merger of the order of the ITO with the order of Commissioner (Appeals) precluding the Commissioner from exercising his revisional powers. Our answer to the second question of law also is in the negative a…

Smt. Niti Nitinkumar Didwania, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, Emtra; - 3, Mumbai

ITA 284/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh F. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 68

…his revisional jurisdiction as regards such matters that have been so considered and decided by the appellate authority. Our aforesaid view is as per the mandate of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. (1998) 231 ITR 50 (SC). Considering the scope and gamut of the jurisdiction of a revisional authority in the backdrop of clause (c) to „Explanation 1‟ of sub-section (1) of Sec. 263 of the Act that was made available on the statute vide the Finance Act, 1989 w.r.e.f 01.06.1988, it was observed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court that the consequence of the said 8 | P a g e…

Shri Nitin Kumar Didwania, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, Central-3, Mumbai

ITA 281/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh F. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 68

…his revisional jurisdiction as regards such matters that have been so considered and decided by the appellate authority. Our aforesaid view is as per the mandate of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. (1998) 231 ITR 50 (SC). Considering the scope and gamut of the jurisdiction of a revisional authority in the backdrop of clause (c) to „Explanation 1‟ of sub-section (1) of Sec. 263 of the Act that was made available on the statute vide the Finance Act, 1989 w.r.e.f 01.06.1988, it was observed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court that the consequence of the said 8 | P a g e…

Smt. Niti Nitin Kumar Didwania, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, Central-3, Mumbai

ITA 280/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh F. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 68

…his revisional jurisdiction as regards such matters that have been so considered and decided by the appellate authority. Our aforesaid view is as per the mandate of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. (1998) 231 ITR 50 (SC). Considering the scope and gamut of the jurisdiction of a revisional authority in the backdrop of clause (c) to „Explanation 1‟ of sub-section (1) of Sec. 263 of the Act that was made available on the statute vide the Finance Act, 1989 w.r.e.f 01.06.1988, it was observed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court that the consequence of the said 8 | P a g e…

Shri Nitin Kumar Didwania, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, Central-3, Mumbai

ITA 278/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh F. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 68

…his revisional jurisdiction as regards such matters that have been so considered and decided by the appellate authority. Our aforesaid view is as per the mandate of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. (1998) 231 ITR 50 (SC). Considering the scope and gamut of the jurisdiction of a revisional authority in the backdrop of clause (c) to „Explanation 1‟ of sub-section (1) of Sec. 263 of the Act that was made available on the statute vide the Finance Act, 1989 w.r.e.f 01.06.1988, it was observed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court that the consequence of the said 8 | P a g e…

Royal Western India Turf Club, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed, as indicated above

ITA 640/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

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

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(2)

…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…