Mumbai in Reliance Payment Solutions Ltd. v. Pr. CIT

136 Taxmann.com 277Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2022#6856 most cited
16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Mumbai in Reliance Payment Solutions Ltd. v. Pr. CIT

HARISH KUMAR MURALIDHAR HARWANI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,WARD-3(1) , HYDERABAD

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

ITA 69/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2016-17 Shri Harish Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Muralidhar Harwani, Ward 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aayph0485N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 21/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.03.2021 Of The Learned Pr.Cit -1, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Validity Of The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act By The Pcit-I.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…Projects : Ltd – ITA No.1361/Hyd/2013 – ITAT Hyderabad xvi) Visu International Ltd – ITA 394/Hyd/2016- ITAT Hyderabad 13. Referring to the decision of the Mumbai bench of the Tribunal in the case of Reliance Payment Solutions Ltd vs. PCIT reported in (2022) 136 Taxmann.com 277, he submitted that the revisional powers u/s 263 cannot be invoked merely because the Assessing Officer did not give specific reasons for accepting assessee’s detailed submissions. 14. The learned Counsel for the assessee also relied on the following decisions: a) Sri V. Rajasekhar vs. Income Tax Officer in ITA No.1357/Hyd/2018 – ITAT H…

CHAROEN POKPHAND SEEDS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 509/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Charoen Pokphand Seeds India The Principal Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 1021/1, Service Income Tax, Road, Gitanjali Layout, Bengaluru – 2, Hal Iii Stage, Vs. Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 075. Pan: Aaccc3259N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri C. Ramesh, Ca : Shri Praveen Karanth, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of The Order U/S. 263 Dated 15.03.2022 Passed By The Ld.Pr.Cit, Bengaluru – 2, Bengaluru For Assessment Year 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Appellant Objects To The Revision Order Passed U/S. 263 On The Following Grounds In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The As It Is Opposed To Law & Circumstances Of The Case: - Originally The Appellant Has Taken Only One Ground Relating To Deduction U/S.35(2Ab). The Following Grounds Were Not Taken By Oversight. Hence The Appellant Is Filing Revised Grounds Of Appeal As Mentioned Below.

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CA
Section 10(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/s. Charoen Pokphand Seeds India The Principal Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner of No. 1021/1, Service Income Tax, Road, Gitanjali Layout, Bengaluru – 2, HAL III Stage, Vs. Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 075. PAN: AACCC3259N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri C. Ramesh, CA : Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT- Revenue by DR Date of Hearing : 14-09-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 21-09-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal arises out of the o…

M/S. CHAROEN POKPHAND SEEDS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 311/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Charoen Pokphand Seeds India The Principal Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 1021/1, Service Income Tax, Road, Gitanjali Layout, Bengaluru – 2, Hal Iii Stage, Vs. Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 075. Pan: Aaccc3259N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri C. Ramesh, Ca : Shri Bijoy Kumar Panda, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of The Order U/S. 263 Dated 30.03.2021 Passed By The Ld.Pr.Cit, Bengaluru – 2, Bengaluru For Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal: “The Appellant Objects To The Revision Order Passed U/S. 263 On The Following Grounds In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The As It Is Opposed To Law & Circumstances Of The Case: - Originally The Appellant Has Taken Only One Ground Relating To Deduction U/S.35(2Ab). The Following Grounds Were Not Taken By Oversight. Hence The Appellant Is Filing Revised Grounds Of Appeal As Mentioned Below.

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CA
Section 10Section 10(1)Section 10ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/s. Charoen Pokphand Seeds India The Principal Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner of No. 1021/1, Service Income Tax, Road, Gitanjali Layout, Bengaluru – 2, HAL III Stage, Vs. Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 075. PAN: AACCC3259N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri C. Ramesh, CA : Shri Bijoy Kumar Panda, CIT Revenue by (DR) Date of Hearing : 21-04-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal arises out of the…

Mumbai in Reliance Payment Solutions Ltd. v. Pr. CIT (136 Taxmann.com 277) — Cited in 16 Judgments | BharatTax