What is Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) cannot expand the scope of an assessment or improve the Assessing Officer's case in a manner that usurps the revisional power of the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act.

How many judgments cite Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT?

201 judgments on BharatTax cite Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT (30 SOT 374), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 9(1)(vii), Section 144C(3), Section 139(1), Section 1961, Section 250.

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT (30 SOT 374)

Surya Pratap Singh Chauhan, Lucknow vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 642/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 Surya Pratap Singh Chauhan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 68/422, Gandhi Nagar, Lucknow- 2(1), Lucknow-New 226001 Pan: Awgpc6261P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Smt. Sonal Singh, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Dated 7.07.2025 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee That Were Filed Against The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessment Unit For The A.Y. 2018-19 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 On 3.03.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because The Notice Issued Under Section 148 Has Been Issued By The Jao, Which Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Section 151A Of The Act, The Entire Assessment Framed Is Bad In Law Be Quashed. 02. Because The Notice Under Section 148 Having Been Issued On 23.03.2022, Beyond The Period Of Three Years & The Total Investment In Bit Coin Trading Is Of Rs.9,63,000/-, There Being No Profit On The Same On The Contrary Being Loss, The Entire Reopening Of The Assessment Is Without Proper Verification Of Facts, Based On Wrong Facts The Addition Of Rs.88,55,128/- Made By The Ao & Upheld By The Cit(A) Be Deleted. 03. Because The Cit(A), Nfac, Has Failed To Appreciate The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Has Arbitrarily Upheld The Addition Of Rs.88,55,128/- Under Section 69 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Being Unexplained Investment In Purchase & Sale Of Bitcoins, Which Addition Is Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law, The Addition Made Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sonal Singh, JCIT DR

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69

…and he sought admission of the same in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Limited vs. CIT 229 ITR 383, the Hon’ble Guahati High Court in the case of Assam Co. India Limited 256 ITR 423 and All Cargo Global Logistics vs. DCIT 30 SOT 374 (Mumbai). 3. The facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer received information from the insight Portal that the assessee had undertaken/was involved in huge bitcoin trading in the F.Y. 2017-18 amounting to Rs. 83,78,124/-. Accordingly, after giving due opportunity of being heard under section 148A(b) of the Act, an order under section 148A…

Subhash Jaiswal Associates, Bareilly vs. PCIT Bareilly, Bareilly

ITA 100/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

For Appellant: Respondent by

Section 143(3)Section 263

…on record. Reliance in this connection is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 and also Gauhati High Court in the case of Assam Co. India Ltd. 256 ITR 423 and Al Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. Vs. DCIT 30 SOT 374 (Mumbai). (B) In this case, assessment order dated 15.12.2019 was passed u/s 143(3) of the Act whereby the assessee's total income was determined at Rs.97,61,730/- as against the returned income of Rs.94,78,920/-. The Ld PCIT assumed jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by issuing show cause notice to the assessee. Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT passed ord…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, Kanpur vs. Commercial Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 779/LKW/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Nov 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2006-07 Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Commercial Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax-5, Kanpur 84/105, Kailash Motors Building, G.T. Road, Afim Kothi, Kanpur-208003 Pan: Aaccc4267E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit (A)- 2, Kanpur Dated 25.09.2017, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Y. 2006-07 On 23.12.2008. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 5,32,366/- U/S 14A Without Taken Into Consideration That The Expenditure Incurred In Relation To Exempt Income. 02. That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 99,56,258/-Without Appreciating That The Provisions Of Sec. 50C Have Been Invoked By The Assessing Officer On The Basis Of Stamp Valuation Of The Property. The Assessee Has Not Claimed Before The Assessing Office To Make The Reference To The Valuation Officer U/S 55A Of It Act, 1961. 3 That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 3,20,90,164/- On Account Of Loss Claimed On Sale Of Shares Without Appreciating That The Transaction As Claimed Were Sham & Was Incorporated Only To Evade The Capital Gain Earned On The Sale Of Properties. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Ignoring The Facts Noted By The Assessing Officer Regarding The Transaction Of Sale Of Shares.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(X)Section 41(1)Section 50CSection 55A

…d.” Therefore, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Limited vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 and the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Assam Coal India Limited 256 ITR 423 and All Cargo Global Logistics Limited vs. DCIT 30 SOT 374 Mumbai, the assessee prayed that the additional grounds of appeal may kindly be admitted. After considering the nature of the additional grounds of appeal, the same are admitted for consideration. The facts of the case are that the assessee filed a return on 29.11.2006 3. declaring a total income of Rs. 5,27,73,080/-. During the course of assessme…

M/S Estin Tie Up Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 32/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 50C(1)Section 55A

…liance was also placed upon the decision of Special Bench reported in 306 ITR 1 that the DR cannot go beyond the assessment order to the detriment of the assessee and the DR is to be restricted to support the view of the Ld. AO. Further reliance was placed on 313 ITR 263 (SB) and 19 ITR 872 (Cal). It was stated that the scope of the Tribunal is limited to the issues before it. Further facts which emerged were that the land was not registered in the name of the company but this was countered by saying that since it was a case of demerger, the assessee became the owner and the land on account of demerger. However,…

A.C.I.T., Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Estin Tie Up Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 141/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 50C(1)Section 55A

…liance was also placed upon the decision of Special Bench reported in 306 ITR 1 that the DR cannot go beyond the assessment order to the detriment of the assessee and the DR is to be restricted to support the view of the Ld. AO. Further reliance was placed on 313 ITR 263 (SB) and 19 ITR 872 (Cal). It was stated that the scope of the Tribunal is limited to the issues before it. Further facts which emerged were that the land was not registered in the name of the company but this was countered by saying that since it was a case of demerger, the assessee became the owner and the land on account of demerger. However,…

DCIT Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed, and the additional ground of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4069/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry – Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta - CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 260ASection 43BSection 45Section 801ASection 801A(4)

…r, as the same would amount to usurpation of power of the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Act. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (122 ITD 216). In any case, the assessee submits that it is open to the Ld. CIT(A) to admit and adjudicate an additional claim made before the Ld. CIT(A) in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders (349 ITR 336). Therefore, the contention of the Ld. Ld. DR that Ld. CIT(A) has rendered contrad…

Grasim Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed,

ITA 2897/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry – Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta - CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 260ASection 43BSection 45Section 801ASection 801A(4)

…r, as the same would-amount to usurpation of power of the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Act. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (122 ITD 216). In any case, the assessee submits that it is open to the Ld. CIT(A) to admit and adjudicate an additional claim made before the Ld. CIT(A) in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders (349 ITR 336). Therefore, the contention of the Ld. Ld. DR that Ld. CIT(A) has rendered contrad…

State Bank of India (Earlier Known As Sbbj), Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer(TDS), Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 173/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 May 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Mrs. Apeksha Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 142Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250(6)Section 253(5)Section 292BSection 5

…s under section 201(1) as well as the completion of such proceedings by passing an order have to be prior to the time-limit within which the tax can be determined in the hands of the payee. It cannot be beyond such a period. (Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd, [2009] 30 SOT 374 (Mumbai) (SB)) The special bench in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs DCIT, 30 SOT 374 (Mumbai) (SB) held that the very idea of passing an order under section 201(1) stands on the foundation of the presumption that there is a default in deducting the whole or any part of tax or that after deduction there is a failure to pay such tax as requi…

Oliria Foods and Beverages Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1531/JPR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144B(1)(ix)

…(v) CIT Vs. Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Learned. (1992) 193 ITR 624 (Ker) An appellant before the Tribunal can raise any new or additional point for the first time in appeal before the Tribunal. (vi) Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Dy. CIT (2009) 122 TTJ 577 (Mub)(SB) Appeal (Tribunal)-Additional ground-Question of limitation-Special Bench having been constituted for deciding the question of limitation on the request of Revenue, the objection as to raising of additional ground by assessee is not maintainable now Further, there can be no embargo on any party to raise a legal ground for the first time…

The Service Co-Operative Bank Limited, No.F 583, Malappuram vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Kozhikode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 887/COCH/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.M.Ramkumar Menon, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142Section 153ASection 250Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

…a reasonable period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, as held by the Special Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2010) 5 ITA Nos.884-887/Coch/2024. The Service Co-op.Bank Limited No.F 583. 122 ITD 216 (SB)(Mum) (Trib) [affirmed in DIT(IT) v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (2014) 365 ITR 560 (Bom) (HC)]. Thus, the penalty proceedings in respect of ITA Nos.884 & 885/Coch/2024 for assessment years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 respectively are bad in law and accordingly we quash the penalty proceedings initiated u/s.271B of the Act and direct the AO to delet…

The Service Co-Operative Bank Limited, No.F 583, Malappuram vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Kozhikode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 886/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.M.Ramkumar Menon, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142Section 153ASection 250Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

…a reasonable period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, as held by the Special Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2010) 5 ITA Nos.884-887/Coch/2024. The Service Co-op.Bank Limited No.F 583. 122 ITD 216 (SB)(Mum) (Trib) [affirmed in DIT(IT) v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (2014) 365 ITR 560 (Bom) (HC)]. Thus, the penalty proceedings in respect of ITA Nos.884 & 885/Coch/2024 for assessment years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 respectively are bad in law and accordingly we quash the penalty proceedings initiated u/s.271B of the Act and direct the AO to delet…

The Service Co-Operative Bank Limited, No.F 583, Malappuram vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Kozhikode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 885/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.M.Ramkumar Menon, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142Section 153ASection 250Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

…a reasonable period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, as held by the Special Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2010) 5 ITA Nos.884-887/Coch/2024. The Service Co-op.Bank Limited No.F 583. 122 ITD 216 (SB)(Mum) (Trib) [affirmed in DIT(IT) v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (2014) 365 ITR 560 (Bom) (HC)]. Thus, the penalty proceedings in respect of ITA Nos.884 & 885/Coch/2024 for assessment years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 respectively are bad in law and accordingly we quash the penalty proceedings initiated u/s.271B of the Act and direct the AO to delet…

The Service Co-Operative Bank Limited, No.F 583, Malappuram vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Kozhikode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 884/COCH/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.M.Ramkumar Menon, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142Section 153ASection 250Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

…a reasonable period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, as held by the Special Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2010) 5 ITA Nos.884-887/Coch/2024. The Service Co-op.Bank Limited No.F 583. 122 ITD 216 (SB)(Mum) (Trib) [affirmed in DIT(IT) v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (2014) 365 ITR 560 (Bom) (HC)]. Thus, the penalty proceedings in respect of ITA Nos.884 & 885/Coch/2024 for assessment years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 respectively are bad in law and accordingly we quash the penalty proceedings initiated u/s.271B of the Act and direct the AO to delet…