COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. ODEON BUILDERS P. LTD.

393 ITR 27High Court2017#8051 most cited

What is COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. ODEON BUILDERS P. LTD. authority for?

The limitation period for filing an appeal against an ITAT order commences from the date of receipt of the order by any CIT, not necessarily the 'concerned jurisdictional CIT'. Alternatively, the date of pronouncement of the order can be taken as the date of service.

14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Odeon Builders (P.) Ltd. · Section 260A · ITAT order · limitation period · date of receipt · CIT (Judicial) · pronouncement date · Section 275(1)(a)

Also reported as

80 Taxmann.com 180

Sections most often in play

Section 144Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

national tax tribunalsection 275(1)(a)section 9(l)(vi)section 9(l)section 271(l)section 153(2a)interest under section 234csection 271(l)(c)section 275section 264royalty incomesection 260

Judgments citing COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. ODEON BUILDERS P. LTD.

Cmv Education Society, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2505/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHIR S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHIR S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. DCIT, CMV Education Society, 2D, MIG Flats, W.E.A. Central Circle-6, 17A/56, Gulabi Bagh, Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAAAC1679A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Adv. Department by Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 23.06.2025 Date of pronouncement 09.07.2025 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12, arises against the Commissioner of I…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Cvent India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2505/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shir S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHIR S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2505/Del/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 CMV Education Society, Vs. | DCIT, 2D, MIG Flats, W.E.A. Central Circle-6, 17A/56, Gulabi Bagh, Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAAAC1679A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Adv. Department by Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 23.06.2025 Date of pronouncement 09.07.2025 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12, arise…

Teras Steels Private Limited (Earlier Known As M/S. Accil Steels Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-29, New Delhi

In the result, all captioned appeals/Cross-Objections etc

ITA 3809/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

…he Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Surendra Kumar Jain, Virendra Kumar Jain vs Pr.CIT (Central-III), New Delhi & Anr.(2018) 406 ITR 328 (Del). The Hon’ble Delhi High took cognizance of Full Bench Judgment in the case of CIT vs Odeon Builders (P.) Ltd. 393 ITR 27 (Delhi) and that of division bench in CIT vs. Sudhir Choudhrie (2005) 278 ITR 490 (Delhi) and observed in unequivocal terms that once the order is listed for pronouncement in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the department representative or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Judicial) should be taken to be aware of the order. From that point, it is…

Rajnish J. Karki, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-32(5), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9806/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. N. K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2012-13 Rajnish J. Karki Ito L-1/13, Hauz Khas Enclave, Vs Ward-32(5) New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Ajepk8684C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 275

…der of the ITAT was also simultaneously served on the same date on the CIT (DR). The limitation period, therefore, began running from that date itself. 4. A Full Bench of this Court in CIT v. Odeon Builders (P.) Ltd. f20171 80 taxmann.com 180/247 Taxman 184/393 ITR 27categorically held that in the context of Section 260A of the Act, the limitation period for filing an appeal against an order of the ITAT would begin to run immediately upon a copy of the order being received by the CIT (Judicial).This Court rejected the contention of the Revenue that till the 'concerned jurisdictional CIT' received the order of t…

Qualcomm Incorporated, Usa vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 7893/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anupama Anand, CIT-DR
Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 9

…Now the question arises is as to ‘what is the meaning by received by Principal CIT or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner?. 16. This has been answered by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Odeon Builders Private Limited 393 ITR 27 though this judgement is delivered in the context of section 260(2A) of the Act but, as exhibited elsewhere, provisions of section 153(2A) are similarly worded as section 260(2A) of the Act. 17. The Hon'ble High Court, thus, observed as under: “1. The central question that arises for consideration before this Bench is whether the words "the Pr…

Qualcomm Incorporated, Usa vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 7892/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anupama Anand, CIT-DR
Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 9

…Now the question arises is as to ‘what is the meaning by received by Principal CIT or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner?. 16. This has been answered by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Odeon Builders Private Limited 393 ITR 27 though this judgement is delivered in the context of section 260(2A) of the Act but, as exhibited elsewhere, provisions of section 153(2A) are similarly worded as section 260(2A) of the Act. 17. The Hon'ble High Court, thus, observed as under: “1. The central question that arises for consideration before this Bench is whether the words "the Pr…

Qualcomm Incorporated, Usa vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 7891/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anupama Anand, CIT-DR
Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 9

…Now the question arises is as to ‘what is the meaning by received by Principal CIT or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner?. 16. This has been answered by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Odeon Builders Private Limited 393 ITR 27 though this judgement is delivered in the context of section 260(2A) of the Act but, as exhibited elsewhere, provisions of section 153(2A) are similarly worded as section 260(2A) of the Act. 17. The Hon'ble High Court, thus, observed as under: “1. The central question that arises for consideration before this Bench is whether the words "the Pr…

Qualcomm Incorporated, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 7890/DEL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anupama Anand, CIT-DR
Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 9

…Now the question arises is as to ‘what is the meaning by received by Principal CIT or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner?. 16. This has been answered by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Odeon Builders Private Limited 393 ITR 27 though this judgement is delivered in the context of section 260(2A) of the Act but, as exhibited elsewhere, provisions of section 153(2A) are similarly worded as section 260(2A) of the Act. 17. The Hon'ble High Court, thus, observed as under: “1. The central question that arises for consideration before this Bench is whether the words "the Pr…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Abbey Business Services

In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal

ITA/420/2015HC Karnataka06 Jul 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 195Section 260Section 40

…elay has been filed. Therefore, the appeal itself cannot be entertained. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on 4 the decision of Full Bench of Delhi High Court in 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. ODEON BUILDERS P. LTD.' 393 ITR 27. 3. Learned counsel for the revenue was unable to point out as to why the judgment in ITA Nos.214/2014 and 215/2014 does not apply to the facts of this case. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and we find that the aforesaid questions of law have already been answered in favour of the assessee by judgment dated 01…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Abbey Business Services

In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal

ITA/421/2015HC Karnataka06 Jul 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 195Section 260Section 40

…elay has been filed. Therefore, the appeal itself cannot be entertained. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on 4 the decision of Full Bench of Delhi High Court in 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. ODEON BUILDERS P. LTD.' 393 ITR 27. 3. Learned counsel for the revenue was unable to point out as to why the judgment in ITA Nos.214/2014 and 215/2014 does not apply to the facts of this case. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and we find that the aforesaid questions of law have already been answered in favour of the assessee by judgment dated 01…

P.K.Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. Pr.CIT, Meerut

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6039/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 6039/Del/2017 (A.Y 2008-09) (Through Physical Hearing) P. K. Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. Cit C/O. Rra Tax India, D-28, Meerut, South Extension, Part-1, New Uttar Pradesh Delhi Aadcp4270D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 6039/DEL/2017 (A.Y 2008-09) (THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING) P. K. Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. CIT C/o. RRA Tax India, D-28, Meerut, South Extension, Part-1, New Uttar Pradesh Delhi AADCP4270D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Respondent by Sh. Mahesh Thakur, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06.04.2021 Date of Pronouncement 20.04.2021 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against order dated 25/07/2017 passe…

Trimble Solutions Corporation, Mumbai vs. DCIT(It)-4(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 6481/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Sh. Divesh ChawlaFor Respondent: Sh. Anbu Selvam
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 27ISection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…P a g e | 1 ITA No.6481 & 6482/Mum/2017 A.Ys 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Trimble Solutions (earlier known as ‘Tekla Corporation) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice President and Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member ITA No. 6482/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Trimble Solutions Corporation Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir C/0 SRBC & Associates LLP, 14th Floor., (IT)(4)(1)(2), Mumbai, Room No. 1609, 16th The Ruby 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Vs. (W), Mumbai-400 028. Mumbai-400 021. PAN – AADCT2639Q (Appellant) (Respond…

Shri Lal Mahal Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 8(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2299/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri B.L. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 275Section 40A(3)

…resentative, i.e., 6.3.2018; or when the order was received in the office of CIT (Judicial) on 6.4.2018 as mentioned in the penalty order. This precise issue has been dealt by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 393 ITR 27 which has been reiterated and followed in the case of Surender Kumar Jain vs. Pr.CIT by Hon’ble High Court. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Surender Kumar Jain vs. Pr. CIT (supra) reads as under :- “5. It is quite evident from the decision in Odeon Builders (P.) Ltd. (supra) that limitation begins (for any purpos…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s Trinity Advanced Software Labs Private Limited

ITTA/421/2015HC Telangana01 Jun 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. ODEON BUILDERS P. LTD. (393 ITR 27) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax