L.G. Electronics India (P) Ltd. v. PCIT

388 ITR 135High Court2016#4865 most cited

What is L.G. Electronics India (P) Ltd. v. PCIT authority for?

An order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue if relevant facts were not examined during assessment.

24

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

L.G. Electronics India (P) Ltd. v. PCIT · Section 143(3) · Section 263 · erroneous assessment · prejudicial to revenue · assessment procedure

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 11(1)(d)Section 142(1)Section 250Section 143(2)

Judgments citing L.G. Electronics India (P) Ltd. v. PCIT

SHREE SANT BHOJAJI MAHARAJ DEOSTHAN AJANSARA,WARDHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) - 4, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 212/NAG/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Apr 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 263

…/5001/2022 8. Judgment of Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur dated 22/10/2024 vide ITA No. 349 & 350/Nag/2024 in case of Latitude Infraventure –Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur-1 reported at MANU/NP/0073/2024 9. (2016) 388 ITR 135 (All. HC) L.G. Electronics India (P) Ltd. –Vs.- Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 10. Judgment of Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Surat Bench, Surat dated 22/03/2021 vide ITA No. 404/SRT/2019 in case of Begani Dyeing Mills Pvt. Ltd. – Vs.- Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 16. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue supp…

SHREE SANT BHOJAJI MAHARAJ DEOSTHAN AJANSARA,WARDHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) -4, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 211/NAG/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Apr 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 263

…/5001/2022 8. Judgment of Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur dated 22/10/2024 vide ITA No. 349 & 350/Nag/2024 in case of Latitude Infraventure –Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur-1 reported at MANU/NP/0073/2024 9. (2016) 388 ITR 135 (All. HC) L.G. Electronics India (P) Ltd. –Vs.- Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 10. Judgment of Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Surat Bench, Surat dated 22/03/2021 vide ITA No. 404/SRT/2019 in case of Begani Dyeing Mills Pvt. Ltd. – Vs.- Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 16. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue supp…

SHREE SANT BHOJAJI MAHARAJ DEOSTHAN AJANSARA,WARDHA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE AT NGP, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 186/NAG/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Apr 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 263

…/5001/2022 8. Judgment of Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur dated 22/10/2024 vide ITA No. 349 & 350/Nag/2024 in case of Latitude Infraventure –Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur-1 reported at MANU/NP/0073/2024 9. (2016) 388 ITR 135 (All. HC) L.G. Electronics India (P) Ltd. –Vs.- Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 10. Judgment of Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Surat Bench, Surat dated 22/03/2021 vide ITA No. 404/SRT/2019 in case of Begani Dyeing Mills Pvt. Ltd. – Vs.- Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 16. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue supp…

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

ITA 1014/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, (Adv.) &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, (CIT-DR)
Section 147Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…relevant facts have not been examined. The\norder of the Assessing Officer was erroneous. The order of the\nAssessing Officer was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.”\n10. 5. 5. Further in the case of L.G. Electronics India (P.) Ltd. Vs PCIT\n(2016) 388 ITR 135/ 290 CTR 283 (Allahabad) (PB 23 to 29)(DC\n),\nthe original assessment was passed at total income of Rs.\n5,83,91,17,790/- on dated 21.10.2011 wherein an addition on account of\nsales tax subsidy of Rs.61,00,79,579/- was made. Thereafter, the case\nwas reopened and reassessment was completed vide order dated\n26.03.2015 by making a further disall…

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)

…(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 17 13. PCIT Vs. Medicare Ltd., DHC-dated 14.09.2017 14. ITO Vs. D.G.Housi…

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

…om 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 case of L.G. Electronics India (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT: 388 ITR 135 in a writ petition challenging validity of notice under section 263, been held that notice under section 263(1) of the Act has been issued with reference to a discrepancy occurred in original assessment order and it has nothing to do with reassessment order, limitation would run from date of regular order of assessment and not from date of reasse…

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)

…(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., DHC-dated 05.09.20 17 13. PCIT Vs. Medicare Ltd., DHC-dated 14.09.201…

SPECTRUM VENTURE PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1077/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rajnish K. Vohra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajeek Sahu, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…Ltd. [(2007)] 162 Taxman 465 (SC)].The ld AR also relies on a series of decisions namely 6 M/s. Spectrum Venture Pvt. Ltd. CIT Vs ICICI Bank Ltd (343 ITR 74)(Bombay), Skyline Builders Vs CIT (412 ITR 182)(Kerala) and L.G. Electronics India (P.) Ltd Vs PCIT (388 ITR 135)(Allahabad). 6. The ld DR on the other hand contended that two years have to be taken from the date of assessment framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 29.12.2017 and not from the date of original assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 11.03.2013.The ld DR relied on the revisionary order passed by the ld PCIT and submitted t…

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

…e decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of CIT versus Bharati Airtel Ltd (2013) [218 taxman 112] , CIT versus Sriram engineering construction Co Ltd [330 ITR 568[, LG electronics India private limited versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [388 ITR 135] and Indra Industries versus PCIT (2018) [95 taxman.com 103]. II. His main plank was that PCIT under section 263 could not have sought to revise an order passed under section 147 read with section 143 (3) of the act on an issue which was not a subject matter of the reassessment proceedings under section 147 at the first place and it is beyond jur…

M/S. SRI BALAJI FORGINGS (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT- 8, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 3216/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

For Appellant: Advocates &For Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…263 of the I.T. Act. In support of his contention he has relied upon decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd., 293 ITR 1 and Judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., 388 ITR 135. He has submitted that Ld. Pr. CIT could have revised the second re-assessment order dated 05.12.2016 whereby re-assessment was dropped. In support of his contention he has relied upon the Order of ITAT, Indore Bench, Third Member, in the case of Dewas Silk Mills vs. CIT (2005) 93 ITD 31 (Indore) (TM). Learned Counsel for the Assessee further sub…

SH. BALBIR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PR. CIT, HISAR

ITA 652/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Oct 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri. Gautam Jain, Sh. Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj
Section 263(1)

…same stands merged with an order made u/s 143(3)7147 of the Act on the same issue for which notice u/s 263 has been issued. Reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of L.G. Electronics India (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT reported in 388 ITR 135. 5 In any case and without prejudice, the factual matrix remains that now the claim stands accepted and allowed after due enquiry in two separate orders, one u/s 143(3) of the Act and another u/s 147/143(3) of the Act. A copy of the order u/s 143(3)7147 of the Act is placed at page 54 ofAnnexure to this Reply, wherein it has been stated as under:…

SH. GURDEEP SINGH,SIRSA vs. PR. CIT, HISAR

ITA 651/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Oct 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri. Gautam Jain, Sh. Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj
Section 263(1)

…same stands merged with an order made u/s 143(3)7147 of the Act on the same issue for which notice u/s 263 has been issued. Reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of L.G. Electronics India (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT reported in 388 ITR 135. 5 In any case and without prejudice, the factual matrix remains that now the claim stands accepted and allowed after due enquiry in two separate orders, one u/s 143(3) of the Act and another u/s 147/143(3) of the Act. A copy of the order u/s 143(3)7147 of the Act is placed at page 54 ofAnnexure to this Reply, wherein it has been stated as under:…

SH. LAKHVINDER SINGH,SIRSA vs. PR. CIT, HISAR

ITA 649/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Oct 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri. Gautam Jain, Sh. Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj
Section 263(1)

…same stands merged with an order made u/s 143(3)7147 of the Act on the same issue for which notice u/s 263 has been issued. Reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of L.G. Electronics India (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT reported in 388 ITR 135. 5 In any case and without prejudice, the factual matrix remains that now the claim stands accepted and allowed after due enquiry in two separate orders, one u/s 143(3) of the Act and another u/s 147/143(3) of the Act. A copy of the order u/s 143(3)7147 of the Act is placed at page 54 ofAnnexure to this Reply, wherein it has been stated as under:…

SH. BALWINDER SINGH,SIRSA vs. PR. CIT, HISAR

ITA 648/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Oct 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri. Gautam Jain, Sh. Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj
Section 263(1)

…same stands merged with an order made u/s 143(3)7147 of the Act on the same issue for which notice u/s 263 has been issued. Reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of L.G. Electronics India (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT reported in 388 ITR 135. 5 In any case and without prejudice, the factual matrix remains that now the claim stands accepted and allowed after due enquiry in two separate orders, one u/s 143(3) of the Act and another u/s 147/143(3) of the Act. A copy of the order u/s 143(3)7147 of the Act is placed at page 54 ofAnnexure to this Reply, wherein it has been stated as under:…

SH. BALDEV RAJ,SIRSA vs. PR. CIT, HISAR

ITA 612/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Oct 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri. Gautam Jain, Sh. Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj
Section 263(1)

…same stands merged with an order made u/s 143(3)7147 of the Act on the same issue for which notice u/s 263 has been issued. Reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of L.G. Electronics India (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT reported in 388 ITR 135. 5 In any case and without prejudice, the factual matrix remains that now the claim stands accepted and allowed after due enquiry in two separate orders, one u/s 143(3) of the Act and another u/s 147/143(3) of the Act. A copy of the order u/s 143(3)7147 of the Act is placed at page 54 ofAnnexure to this Reply, wherein it has been stated as under:…

SH. JAGTAR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PR. CIT, HISAR

ITA 610/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Oct 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri. Gautam Jain, Sh. Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj
Section 263(1)

…same stands merged with an order made u/s 143(3)7147 of the Act on the same issue for which notice u/s 263 has been issued. Reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of L.G. Electronics India (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT reported in 388 ITR 135. 5 In any case and without prejudice, the factual matrix remains that now the claim stands accepted and allowed after due enquiry in two separate orders, one u/s 143(3) of the Act and another u/s 147/143(3) of the Act. A copy of the order u/s 143(3)7147 of the Act is placed at page 54 ofAnnexure to this Reply, wherein it has been stated as under:…

SH. GANESH DASS MEHTA,SIRSA vs. PR. CIT, HISAR

ITA 609/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Oct 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri. Gautam Jain, Sh. Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj
Section 263(1)

…same stands merged with an order made u/s 143(3)7147 of the Act on the same issue for which notice u/s 263 has been issued. Reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of L.G. Electronics India (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT reported in 388 ITR 135. 5 In any case and without prejudice, the factual matrix remains that now the claim stands accepted and allowed after due enquiry in two separate orders, one u/s 143(3) of the Act and another u/s 147/143(3) of the Act. A copy of the order u/s 143(3)7147 of the Act is placed at page 54 ofAnnexure to this Reply, wherein it has been stated as under:…

SH. BANT SINGH,SIRSA vs. PR. CIT, HISAR

ITA 607/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Oct 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri. Gautam Jain, Sh. Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj
Section 263(1)

…same stands merged with an order made u/s 143(3)7147 of the Act on the same issue for which notice u/s 263 has been issued. Reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of L.G. Electronics India (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT reported in 388 ITR 135. 5 In any case and without prejudice, the factual matrix remains that now the claim stands accepted and allowed after due enquiry in two separate orders, one u/s 143(3) of the Act and another u/s 147/143(3) of the Act. A copy of the order u/s 143(3)7147 of the Act is placed at page 54 ofAnnexure to this Reply, wherein it has been stated as under:…

SH. JOGINDER SINGH,SIRSA vs. PR. CIT, HISAR

ITA 605/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Oct 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri. Gautam Jain, Sh. Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj
Section 263(1)

…same stands merged with an order made u/s 143(3)7147 of the Act on the same issue for which notice u/s 263 has been issued. Reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of L.G. Electronics India (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT reported in 388 ITR 135. 5 In any case and without prejudice, the factual matrix remains that now the claim stands accepted and allowed after due enquiry in two separate orders, one u/s 143(3) of the Act and another u/s 147/143(3) of the Act. A copy of the order u/s 143(3)7147 of the Act is placed at page 54 ofAnnexure to this Reply, wherein it has been stated as under:…

SH. CHADAT SINGH,SIRSA vs. PR. CIT, HISAR

ITA 604/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Oct 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri. Gautam Jain, Sh. Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj
Section 263(1)

…same stands merged with an order made u/s 143(3)7147 of the Act on the same issue for which notice u/s 263 has been issued. Reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of L.G. Electronics India (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT reported in 388 ITR 135. 5 In any case and without prejudice, the factual matrix remains that now the claim stands accepted and allowed after due enquiry in two separate orders, one u/s 143(3) of the Act and another u/s 147/143(3) of the Act. A copy of the order u/s 143(3)7147 of the Act is placed at page 54 ofAnnexure to this Reply, wherein it has been stated as under:…

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2

L.G. Electronics India (P) Ltd. v. PCIT (388 ITR 135) — Cited in 24 Judgments | BharatTax