Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/s. Accel Limited 421 of come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 142(1), Section 143(3), Section 14A, Section 263, Section 54E.

Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/s. Accel Limited 421 of (423 ITR 180)

Q: What is Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/s. Accel Limited 421 of authority for?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax cannot initiate revision proceedings under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer has framed an assessment under Section 143(3) by taking a plausible and possible view on an issue after examining it. Such a revision is considered invalid.

Q: How many judgments cite Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/s. Accel Limited 421 of?

41 judgments on BharatTax cite Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/s. Accel Limited 421 of (423 ITR 180), spanning 2021 to 2026.

SHILPI MODI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2),, KOLKATA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1965/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2022-2023

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

…t this has been accepted. The Ld. AR submitted that therefore, the jurisdiction exercised by the Ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act is invalid and may be quashed. The Ld. AR, defence his argument, relied on the decision of the Ld. PCIT Vs. Kesoram Industries Limited 423 ITR 180(Cal), wherein a similar issue has been decided in favour of the assessee. Similarly, the Ld. AR relied on the decision of the PCIT Vs. Britannia Industries Limited, ITA No. 211 of 2022 dated 23.12.2022. wherein similar issue has been decided in favour of the assessee. Ld. DR on the other hand relied on the order of Ld. PCIT and therefore, prayed…

RAVI MODI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2),, KOLKATA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1964/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2022-2023

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

…t this has been accepted. The Ld. AR submitted that therefore, the jurisdiction exercised by the Ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act is invalid and may be quashed. The Ld. AR, defence his argument, relied on the decision of the Ld. PCIT Vs. Kesoram Industries Limited 423 ITR 180(Cal), wherein a similar issue has been decided in favour of the assessee. Similarly, the Ld. AR relied on the decision of the PCIT Vs. Britannia Industries Limited, ITA No. 211 of 2022 dated 23.12.2022. wherein similar issue has been decided in favour of the assessee. Ld. DR on the other hand relied on the order of Ld. PCIT and therefore, prayed…

RAGHUVIR RETAILERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 919/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Pcit-2 Raghuvir Retailers Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan P-7, Mandawa Shikhar, 151, Sarat Chowringhee Square, Kolkata- Bose Road, Kolkata-700026, Vs. 700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaecr8231M Assessee By : Shri S.M. Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, DR

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 69A

…in law. Thus there is no service of valid notice on the assessee. In defense of his argument, the ld. AR relied on the decision of Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj Vs. ITO, in WP 9835 of 2022, order dated 09.01.2023 (Bom), PCIT Vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd. [2020] 423 ITR 180 (Calcutta) vide order dated 2nd August, 2019,Manoj Jain, Kolkata vs I.T.O. vide order dated 11 .07.2024.The ld. AR therefore prayed that on the ground of notice issued u/s 148 of the Act being unsigned either manually or digitally, rendering the said notice as invalid and so is the assessment framed u/s 147 of the Act. ii. Second limb of argumen…

SMT. PARAMJIT KAUR,LUDHIANA vs. PR.CIT-2, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 337/CHANDI/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 337/Chd/2020 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2011-12 Smt. Paramjit Kaur, बनाम The Pcit- 2, H.No.7227/3, St. No. 18, Daba Ludhiana Road, New Janta Nagar, Ludhiana 141003 "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Agwpk2730M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sarabjeet Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…assumption, the same could be set-aside by the Tribunal. Finding of the Tribunal is not shown to be perverse. No substantial question of law arises.” 8.4 Reliance by the assessee on various judgments quoted as (Hon’ble Calcutta High Court) reported in (2020) 423 ITR 180 (Cal), is also relevant, in which, it has been held as under:- “Revision-Powers of Commissioner- order of Tribunal setting aside revision order on ground issues raised by Commissioner, had been considered by the Assessing Officer and order not erroneous – Reasoned order based on facts – Need not be interfered with – Income tax Act, 1961 m SS 25…