How many judgments cite Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CIT?

194 judgments on BharatTax cite Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CIT (321 ITR 92), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 147, Section 144B, Section 148.

Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CIT

321 ITR 92High Court2010#483 most cited

What is Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

This case clarifies the scope of the Commissioner's revisional powers under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, holding that an assessment order can only be revised if it is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, echoing the principles laid down in Malabar Industrial.

194

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CIT · Grasim Industries 321 ITR 92 · Section 263 Income Tax Act · revision u/s 263 · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · scope of revisional powers · inadequate enquiry · non-application of mind · Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. · CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd · assessment order erroneous

Also reported as

188 Taxmann 32723 Taxmann.com 31

Sections most often in play

Section 263 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 147 Section 144B Section 148 Section 10(37)Section 145A(b)

Issues it is cited on

malabar industrial inadequate enquiry revision u/s 263 prejudicial to interest of revenue lack of enquiry revision under section 263 section 263(1)non application of mind assessment order erroneous erroneous and prejudicial income-tax officer section 244a

Judgments citing Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CIT

Om Prakash Mangal, Jodhpur vs. Pr. CIT-1, Jodhpur

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

ITA 48/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur04 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainom Prakash Mangal Vs Pr. Cit-1, 16B, Mahaveer Colony Jodhpur Ratanada Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acopm 6094 L

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

…ce on the revision order passed by Ld PCIT. 5. We heard rival contentions and perused the record. The scope of revision proceedings initiated under section 263 of the Act was examined by Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. V CIT (321 ITR 92) by taking into account the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The relevant observations are extracted below: Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 empowers the Commissioner to call for and examine the record of any proceedings under the Act and, if he considers that any order passed therein, by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so…

Janata Traders, Gadag vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

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

ITA 401/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Girija, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

…ght to have been done. The adverse inference drawn by the PCIT from the documents are debatable as the PCIT has out brought any material on record to substantiate his adverse inference. The Bombay High Court in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) has considered the scope of revision proceedings initiated u/s. 263 of the Act and held as under:- “'Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 empowers the Commissioner to call for and examine the record of any proceedings under the Act and, if he considers that any order passed therein, by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it i…

Ashokkumar Bhanwarlal Chhajer, Sanpada vs. Pr. CIT - (Central), Pune

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

ITA 1361/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…es not call for any interference. 8. We have heard the rival contention and perused the record. The scope of revision proceedings initiated under section 263 of the Act was considered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. V CIT (321 ITR 92) by taking into account the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The relevant observations are extracted below: “Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 empowers the Commissioner to call for and examine the record of any proceedings under the Act and, if he considers that any order passed therein, by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so…

L & T Infra Debt Fund Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 809/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Section 10(47)Section 148Section 148ASection 263

…claim for exemption under section 10(47) of the Act and has taken a possible view of the matter. The scope of revision proceedings initiated under section 263 of the Act was considered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. V CIT (321 ITR 92) by taking into account the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The relevant observations are extracted below: “Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 empowers the Commissioner to call for and examine the record of any proceedings under the Act and, if he considers that any order passed therein, by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so…

Nepal Singh Rathod (HUF), Hubli vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

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

ITA 400/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Abhushan Jewellerys (India ) Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -4, Mumbai

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

ITA 793/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” Bench, Mumbai Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (JM) I.T.A. No. 793/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18) Vs. PCIT-4 Abhushan Jewellery (India) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 629 Office No.4, 2nd Floor 6th Floor Building No. 74A, Sheikh Aayakar Bhavan Memon Street, Zaveri M.K. Road Bazaar, Mumbai-400 002. Mumbai-400 020. PAN : MUMM18849F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Devendra Jain Department by Smt. Shailja Rai Date of Hearing 13.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement 12.08.2022 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (AM) :- The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated…

Asian Star Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 710/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” Bench, Mumbai Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (JM) I.T.A. No. 710/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18) Vs. PCIT (Central)-1 Asian Star Company Ltd. 114-C, Mittal Court 1001, 10th Floor Nariman Point Pratishtha Bhavan Mumbai-400 021. Old CGO Building Annexe, M.K. Road PAN : AAACA4856B Mumbai-400 020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Suchek Anchaliya Department by Ms. Shailja Rai Date of Hearing 17.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement 12.08.2022 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (AM) :- The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the revision order dated 31.3.2022 pas…

Om Sai Co-Operative Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit, Gadag vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 454/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George CIT(OSD)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P

Adibhuta Investmen Ts Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT-3, Mumbai

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

ITA 679/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Section 14ASection 263Section 56(2)(viia)

…, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The scope of revision proceedings initiated under section 263 of the Act was considered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Grasim 3 Adibhuta Investments Pvt. Ltd. Industries Ltd. V CIT (321 ITR 92) by taking into account the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The relevant observations are extracted below: Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 empowers the Commissioner to call for and examine the record of any proceedings under the Act and, if he considers that any order passed therein, by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so…

Varun Khandelwal, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-2, Mumbai

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

ITA 1963/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 263

…regard to the power of Learned CIT to invoke revision proceedings under section 263 of the Act. The scope of revision proceedings initiated under section 263 of the Act was considered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. V CIT (321 ITR 92) by taking into account the 5 Varun Khandelwal law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The relevant observations are extracted below: Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 empowers the Commissioner to call for and examine the record of any proceedings under the Act and, if he considers that any order passed therein, by the Assessing Officer…

Jeevan Deep Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 1439/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…regard to the power of Learned CIT to invoke revision proceedings under section 263 of the Act. The scope of revision proceedings initiated under section 263 of the Act was considered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. V CIT (321 ITR 92) by taking into account the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The relevant observations are extracted below: Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 empowers the Commissioner to call for and examine the record of any proceedings under the Act and, if he considers that any order passed therein, by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so…

Mayur Khara, Yavatmal vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Nagpur

In the result, Both the appeals of above mentioned assessee’s are allowed

ITA 64/NAG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Mayur Khara Vs. The Pcit Datta Chowk Nagpur-2 Yavatmalm 445 001 (Maharastra) Pan No.:Abwpk 8869 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Amit Khara Vs. The Pcit Datta Chowk Nagpur-2 Yavatmalm 445 001 (Maharastra) Pan No.:Abwpk 8868 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Atal, Ca Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Above Mentioned Assessees Against Two Different Orders Passed U/S 263 Of The Act By The Ld. Pr.Cit, Nagpur- 2 Dated 17-02-2017 & 16-02-20217 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Respectively. The Grounds Of Raised By The Above Mentioned Assessees Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Atal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…TR 83(SC), c. CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108(Bom)(HC) d. CIT vs. Vikas Polymers [2012] 341 ITR 537(Delhi)(HC) e. CIT vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR632 (Bom)(HC), f. Grasim Industries Ltd vs. CIT [2010] 321 ITR 92(Bom)(HC) g. CIT vs. NiravModi [2017] 390 ITR 292(Bom) (HC) 9 Shri Mayur Khara vs Pr. CIT-2, Nagpur The ld. AR of appellant further submitted that each of the query of the AO was replied, which is on record and not denied by the Ld. PCIT. The ld. AR of appellant further submitted that even on the merits of the issues mentioned in the notice of P…

Vasundhara Bahuudeshiya Samajikk Sanstha, Khamgaon vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Nagpur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 55/NAG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vasundhara Bahuudeshiya Vs. C.I.T.(Exemptions) Samajik Sanstha, Pune At Nagpur. 1, Vasundhara, Madhav Nagar, Khamgaon-444303. Pan No.: Aaabv 0305 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Atal (Ca) Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 27/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. C.I.T.(Exemptions), Pune At Nagpur Dated 23/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2015-16 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assesee. “1. Whether The Revision Order Passed By The Ld. Pr.Cit By Taking A Recourse To Section 263 Is Illegal & Bad In Law, When The A.O. Has Made Sufficient Enquiries During The Assessment Procedure. 2. Whether The Revision Order Passed By The Ld. Pr.Cit, Without Considering Appellant’S Submission Is Illegal & Bad In Law. 3. Whether The Revision Order Passed By The Ld. Pr.Cit Even Though If It Is Termed As Erroneous But It Is Not Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. As The Donation Has Been Duly Disclosed By The Appellant In Their

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Atal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)

Section 253(5)Section 263

…that it is settled jurisprudence that the Section 263 cannot be invoked on the basis of Change of opinion. The ld. AR relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Nirav Modi 390 ITR 292 (Bom)(HC) and Grasim Industries Vs CIT 321 ITR 92 (Bom)(HC). He has also submitted that as the assessment has been set aside on change of opinion and prayed to quash the proceedings U/s 263 of the Act. 10. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR has vehemently supported the order of the ld. CIT(E) and submitted that notices with regard to the verification of the donors, the assessee had not replied th…

M/S Shree Palsiddha Construction, Buldhana vs. Principal C.I.T. -1, Nagpur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 194/NAG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Shree Palsiddha Construction Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Sakharkheda, Nagpur. Taluka Sindhkhedraja, Buldhana-443202. Pan No.: Ablfs 9009 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Atal (Ca) Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-1, Nagpur Dated 08/03/2017 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2009-10 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Pcit Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S 263 & Thereby Setting Aside Order Passed By Assessing Officer 2. Assessee Craves Leave To Add & Alter Any Other Ground That May Be Taken At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Civil Contractor. Return Of Income Was Filed On 03/12/2009 Declaring Total Income Of 2

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Atal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)

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

…view. However, it is settled jurisprudence that the Section 263 cannot be invoked on e basis of Change of opinion. We find support from the -Judgments of the Bombay High Court. below mentioned CIT Vs Nirav Modi 390 ITR 292 (Bom)(HC) Grasim Industries Vs CIT 321 ITR 92 (Bom)(HC). 4. We also with to draw support from the Judgment of the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of M/s Vaghasiya Exports Vs PCIT (2020). Enclosed on page 37 to 43 of the paper book. 4 ITA 194/NAG/2017_ M/s Shree Palsiddha Construction Sakharkheda Vs Pr.CIT In this case the learned PCIT, invoked 263 revision proceedings to set aside the a…

The Dy CIT (It) Cir-3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Msm Satellite (Singapore)Pte. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the Revenue, for the years under consideration, are dismissed

ITA 382/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr. D.R

Section 244ASection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.380/Mum./2021 (Assessment Year : 2007–08) ITA no.381/Mum./2021 ITA no.382/Mum./2021 (Assessment Year : 2006–07) (Assessment Year : 2008–09) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–3(2)(2), Mumbai v/s MSM Satellite (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. C/o Dhruv A & Co., 1101 & 1102 One Indiabulls Centre, Tower–2B ……………. Respondent Elephinstone Road (W), Mumbai 400 013 PAN – AABCS9229H Assessee by : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate Shri Ritesh Thakkar, C.A. Revenue…

The Dy CIT (Intl. Tax)-Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Msm Satellite (Singapore) Pte Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the Revenue, for the years under consideration, are dismissed

ITA 381/MUM/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr. D.R

Section 244ASection 250

The Dy CIT (Intl. Tax)-Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Msm Satellite (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the Revenue, for the years under consideration, are dismissed

ITA 380/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr. D.R

Section 244ASection 250

M/S. Dmg Mori India Private Limited (Formerly Dmg Mori Seiki India Machines and Services Private Limited), Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 165/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 165/Bang/2020 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Dmg Mori India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Dmg Mori Seiki India Machines & The Deputy Services Pvt. Ltd.), Commissioner Of No. 3/1, 3Rd Main Road, Income Tax, Kiadb, Peenya, 1St Stage, Circle – 11(1), Ward No. 1, Hmt, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 058. Pan: Aabcd0003E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vikram, Advocate : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 22-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 29/11/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Cit(Appeals) Is Contrary To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. Disallowance Under Section 40(A)(I) Of The Act (Rs.2,76,24,000/-) 2.1. Disallowance U/S.40(A)(I) Unwarranted: The Cit(Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Payments Made To M/S R.S Mail Limited , United Kingdom

For Appellant: Shri Vikram, Advocate

Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 40

…ACIT v M/s Textech International P ltd 2012-TII-184-ITAT-MAD-INTL  Gama Industries Coimbatore Ltd v CIT 2012-TII-120-1TAT-MAD-INTL  Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd Vs DCIT 121 TTJ 577 (Mum-SB)  Inveys Systems In.re 3171TR 438 (AIR)  Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CIT 332 ITR 276 Bom  Intertek Testing Services India (P) Ltd. in re 307 ITR 418 Page 9 of 13 IT(TP)A No. 165/Bang/2020  Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd v JCIT 111 TTJ 375 Mum.  ICICI Bank v DCIT ss20 SOT 453 Mum.  Anapharm Inc In Re. 305 ITR 394 AAR  Worley Parsons Services Pty Ltd 313 ITR 74 AAR 5.4 On the contrary, the Ld.CIT.DR relied on orders passed…

Afcons Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -(1), Mumbai

ITA 749/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sujit Ghosh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 69

…with him” on this ground only the order cannot be treated as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as has been held by 15 M/s. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom). 22. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that when the assessment order which was subject matter of section 263 of the Act was passed after discreet enquiry and applying its mind the same cannot be revised under section 263 of the Act. Since order passed by the Ld. PCIT does not fulfill the condition laid down under se…

R Govinde Gowda, Mandya vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-3, Bangalore

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

ITA 366/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

…bstantial questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.” 14. The scope of revision proceedings initiated under section 263 of the Act was considered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. V CIT (321 ITR 92) by taking into account the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The relevant observations are extracted below: Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 empowers the Commissioner to call for and examine the record of any proceedings under the Act and, if he considers that any order passed therein, by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so…