CIT v. Shriram Engineering Construction Company Ltd.

330 ITR 568High Court2011#9691 most cited

What is CIT v. Shriram Engineering Construction Company Ltd. authority for?

A revisionary proceeding under section 263 is initiated based on a discrepancy that occurred in the original assessment order.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Shriram Engineering Construction Company Ltd. · 330 ITR 568 · revisionary proceeding · section 263 · original assessment order · discrepancy · validity of notice · section 263(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Shriram Engineering Construction Company Ltd.

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)

…ITR 74 (Bom.) 4. Indira Industries Vs. PCIT, [2018] 95 TAXMANN.COM 103 (Mad.) 5. CIT Vs. Lark Chemicals Ltd, [2014] 368 ITR 655 (Bom.) 6. CIT Vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd., [2013] 37 taxmann.com 218 (Del.) 7. CIT Vs. Shriram Engg. Construction Co. Ltd., [201 1] 330 ITR 568 (Mad.) 8. L.G.Electronics India (P.) Ltd. Vs. PCIT, [2016] 388 ITR 135 (All.) 9. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. Vs. PCIT, ITAT-New Delhi, dated 14.05.2020 10. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) 11. CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd., [1993] 71 Taxmann 585 (Bom.) 12. PCIT Vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd., DHC-dated 05.09.20 1…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Hisar vs. CIT, Hisar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1462/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. Najmi, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(2)Section 80

…High Court in Ashoka Buildcon Ltd V. ACIT: 325 ITR 574 (Bom) Pg. 38-44 of CLC has also taken the same view. That similar issue was also considered in the case of CIT V. 12 ITA No.1462.Del.2016 Jindal Steel & Power Limited ShriramEngg. Construction Co. Ltd: 330 ITR 568 (Mad). (Pg. 45-49 CLC) It is important to mention a recent decision of Indira Industries vs. PCIT, Madras High Court ([2018] 95 taxmann.com 292 (Madras)) has followed the said Supreme Court ruling and has stated that initiation of 263 proceedings is illegal and bad in law. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Allahabad High Court in the…

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)

…ITR 74 (Bom.) 4. Indira Industries Vs. PCIT, [2018] 95 TAXMANN.COM 103 (Mad.) 5. CIT Vs. Lark Chemicals Ltd, [2014] 368 ITR 655 (Bom.) 6. CIT Vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd., [2013] 37 taxmann.com 218 (Del.) 7. CIT Vs. Shriram Engg. Construction Co. Ltd., [201 1] 330 ITR 568 (Mad.) 8. L.G.Electronics India (P.) Ltd. Vs. PCIT, [2016] 388 ITR 135 (All.) 5 ITA 640/Mum/2021 9. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. Vs. PCIT, ITAT-New Delhi, dated 14.05.2020 10. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) 11. CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd., [1993] 71 Taxmann 585 (Bom.) 12. PCIT Vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd.…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. Prcit, Gurugram

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed on the issue of the impugned order passed beyond the prescribed time, other issues are left open

ITA 4607/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2020AY 2009-10
For Appellant: ShriSalilKapoor, AdvFor Respondent: ShriRaman Chopra[CIT] –
Section 143Section 144CSection 147Section 263Section 263(2)Section 92C

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH „C‟ ”H-1”: NEW DELHI BEFORESHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Shri K N CHARRY , JUDICIAL MEMBER Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. Pr. CIT, 12, BhikajiCama Place, Vs. Gurgaon. New Delhi – 110 029. PAN : AAACJ7097D (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : ShriRaman Chopra[CIT] – DR Assessee by: ShriSalilKapoor, Adv.; ShriSunitLal; Ms. Chandani, Advs.; Ms. AnanyaKapoor, Adv. Date of Hearing 19/03/2020 Date of pronouncement 14/05/2020 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. : 01 This appeal is filed by assessee, M/s Jindal steel and Power Ltd ( Assessee , Appellant) against…

Jani Properties Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2640/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) & Shri Rifaur Rahman (Am) Jani Properties Pvt Ltd Vs Ito, 2(2)(1), Gkdj & Associates, Cas Aayakar Bhavan, 333, Sohrab Hall, 21, Sassoon M.K. Road, Road, Opp Jehangir Hospital, Mumbai -400020 Pune-411 001 Pan : Aaacj7356D Appellant Respondednt

Section 115Section 115JSection 115OSection 154Section 234B

…No.3453/Mum/2010 dt 29.04.2011,  ITO vs BFIL Finance Ltd ITA No.3828/Mum/2015 dt 27.11.2017,  DCIT vs Godrej Industries ITA No.4339/Mum/2015 dt 7.4.2017,  CIT vs Sekseria Cotton Mills Ltd 124 ITR 570 (Bom),  CIT vs Shriram Engineering Construction Co Ltd 330 ITR 568 (Mad) 10. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue strongly relied upon the orders of the AO / CIT(A). The ld. DR for the revenue submits that for the purpose of second rectification order, the limitation should be considered from 13.03.2012. 11. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the orders of lower authorit…

V.R.Venkaatachalam, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2639/CHNY/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.2634, 2635, 2636, 2637, 2638 & 2639/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009- 10, 2010-11 & 2011-2012)

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vidya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Pathlavath Peerya, IRS, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…years 2006-07 and 2007-08 since the same was barred by limitation. 15.4 The ld. Authorised Representative for assessee further relied to the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v Shriram Engineering Construction Company Ltd [2011] 330 ITR 568 (Mad) wherein it was held that the period of limitation applicable for revision u/s.263 commences from the dates of the original assessment and not from the date of order of rectification u/s.154. It was further held that what was sought to be revised was the assessment order and not the rectification order passed because the rectification…

V.R.Venkaatachalam, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2638/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.2634, 2635, 2636, 2637, 2638 & 2639/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009- 10, 2010-11 & 2011-2012)

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vidya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Pathlavath Peerya, IRS, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…years 2006-07 and 2007-08 since the same was barred by limitation. 15.4 The ld. Authorised Representative for assessee further relied to the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v Shriram Engineering Construction Company Ltd [2011] 330 ITR 568 (Mad) wherein it was held that the period of limitation applicable for revision u/s.263 commences from the dates of the original assessment and not from the date of order of rectification u/s.154. It was further held that what was sought to be revised was the assessment order and not the rectification order passed because the rectification…

V.R.Venkaatachalam, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2637/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.2634, 2635, 2636, 2637, 2638 & 2639/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009- 10, 2010-11 & 2011-2012)

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vidya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Pathlavath Peerya, IRS, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…years 2006-07 and 2007-08 since the same was barred by limitation. 15.4 The ld. Authorised Representative for assessee further relied to the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v Shriram Engineering Construction Company Ltd [2011] 330 ITR 568 (Mad) wherein it was held that the period of limitation applicable for revision u/s.263 commences from the dates of the original assessment and not from the date of order of rectification u/s.154. It was further held that what was sought to be revised was the assessment order and not the rectification order passed because the rectification…

V.R.Venkaatachalam, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2636/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.2634, 2635, 2636, 2637, 2638 & 2639/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009- 10, 2010-11 & 2011-2012)

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vidya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Pathlavath Peerya, IRS, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…years 2006-07 and 2007-08 since the same was barred by limitation. 15.4 The ld. Authorised Representative for assessee further relied to the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v Shriram Engineering Construction Company Ltd [2011] 330 ITR 568 (Mad) wherein it was held that the period of limitation applicable for revision u/s.263 commences from the dates of the original assessment and not from the date of order of rectification u/s.154. It was further held that what was sought to be revised was the assessment order and not the rectification order passed because the rectification…

V.R.Venkaatachalam, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2635/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.2634, 2635, 2636, 2637, 2638 & 2639/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009- 10, 2010-11 & 2011-2012)

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vidya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Pathlavath Peerya, IRS, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…years 2006-07 and 2007-08 since the same was barred by limitation. 15.4 The ld. Authorised Representative for assessee further relied to the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v Shriram Engineering Construction Company Ltd [2011] 330 ITR 568 (Mad) wherein it was held that the period of limitation applicable for revision u/s.263 commences from the dates of the original assessment and not from the date of order of rectification u/s.154. It was further held that what was sought to be revised was the assessment order and not the rectification order passed because the rectification…

V.R.Venkaatachalam, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2634/CHNY/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.2634, 2635, 2636, 2637, 2638 & 2639/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009- 10, 2010-11 & 2011-2012)

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vidya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Pathlavath Peerya, IRS, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…years 2006-07 and 2007-08 since the same was barred by limitation. 15.4 The ld. Authorised Representative for assessee further relied to the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v Shriram Engineering Construction Company Ltd [2011] 330 ITR 568 (Mad) wherein it was held that the period of limitation applicable for revision u/s.263 commences from the dates of the original assessment and not from the date of order of rectification u/s.154. It was further held that what was sought to be revised was the assessment order and not the rectification order passed because the rectification…

CIT v. Shriram Engineering Construction Company Ltd. (330 ITR 568) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax