How many judgments cite Oil India Ltd. v. CIT?

19 judgments on BharatTax cite Oil India Ltd. v. CIT (138 ITR 836), spanning 2015 to 2025.

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

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 144B, Section 263, Section 11, Section 11(1)(a), Section 115BBE.

Oil India Ltd. v. CIT

138 ITR 836High Court1982#6172 most cited

What is Oil India Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

A Commissioner cannot revise an assessment order under section 263 if the issue was raised and dealt with in an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, as the revisional power is barred on matters that have been subject to appeal.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Oil India Ltd v CIT · 138 ITR 836 · section 263 · revisionary jurisdiction · appeal · Appellate Assistant Commissioner · Commissioner powers · scope of revision · embargo on revision

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144B Section 263 Section 11 Section 11(1)(a)Section 115BBE Section 2(15)Section 251(1)(i)

Issues it is cited on

section 31(3)section 263(1)section 31 section 251(1)section 251(1)(a)section 251 non-application of mind erroneous and prejudicial unexplained expenditure section 263 section 26 section 144b

Judgments citing Oil India Ltd. v. CIT

JAI MATA DI OM,THANE vs. PR. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, THANE-1, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3342/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna (CIT-DR)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69C

…n the ld.PCIT with respect to exercise of revisionary jurisdiction on\nassessments which have been subject matter of appeal. Reliance in this\nregard is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in\nthe case of Oil India Ltd vs CIT reported in 138 ITR 836 (Cal)\nwherein, the hon'ble Court while interpreting the scope of powers of the\nCommissioner u/s 263 of the Act held that where an appeal is preferred\n\nPage | 7\n\nITA No. 3342/Mum/2025\nA.Y. 2021-22\nJai Mata Di OM\n\nbefore the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) and a subject is\nparticularly raised, he cannot revise such an order taking…

CUPID DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 478/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: \nShri Shubhash Shetty & Shri Vinayaka RaoFor Respondent: \nShri R.A. Dhyani, (CIT-DR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263

…n the ld.PCIT with respect to exercise of revisionary jurisdiction on\nassessments which have been subject matter of appeal. Reliance in this\nregard is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in\nthe case of Oil India Ltd vs CIT reported in 138 ITR 836 (Cal)\nwherein, the hon'ble Court while interpreting the scope of powers of the\nCommissioner u/s 263 of the Act held that where an appeal is preferred\nbefore the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) and a subject is\nparticularly raised, he cannot revise such an order taking into account\nan aspect not dealt by the AAC.\nPage 10\nITA No. 478/…

KAUSHAL ANIL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-20, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1952/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: \nShri Reepal G. Trashawala,ARFor Respondent: \nShri Ritesh Misra,(CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 69C

…n the ld.PCIT with respect to exercise of revisionary jurisdiction on\nassessments which have been subject matter of appeal. Reliance in this\nregard is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in\nthe case of Oil India Ltd vs CIT reported in 138 ITR 836 (Cal)\nwherein, the hon'ble Court interpreting the scope of powers of the\nCommissioner u/s 263 of the Act held that where an appeal is preferred\nbefore the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) and a subject is\nparticularly raised, the Commissioner cannot revise such an order taking\ninto account an aspect not dealt by the AAC.\nPage 7\nITA N…

BALUBHAI KIKABHAI PATEL,VALSAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, VALSAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 461/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.461/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Balubhhai Kikabhai Patel Principal Commissioner Of बनाम/ Nahuli, Karmbele, Umbergon, Income-Tax, Valsad, Room No. Vs. Surat-396 105 301, 3Rd Floor, Palak Arcade, Shanti Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-396 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Akqpp 2563 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 13/03/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 28/05/2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68

…income has also been accepted by the AO in the next assessment year. He relied on the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Meshana District Co-Op. Milk Producers Union Ltd. 263 ITR 645 (Guj) and CIT vs. Shashi Theater (P.) Ltd. 248 ITR 126 (Guj); CIT vs. Amit Corporation 81 CCH 69 (Guj); CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502 (Guj); CIT vs. R.K. Construction Co. 313 ITR 65 (Guj) and Rayon Silk Mills vs. CIT 221 ITR 155 (Guj). ITA No.461/SRT/2024/AY.18-19 Balubhai K Patel 5. On the other hand, Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue supported the order of Ld.PCIT. He submitted that the order of…

ADVERTISING AGENCIES ASSOCIATION OF INDIA ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION ), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assesseeITA No

ITA 2370/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: ShriAmol Kirtane (CIT-DR.)

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

…IT(A) which was in further appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal on the date of invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 and therefore the CIT had not power to revise such an order and the action u/s 263 is bad in law even on this count (Ref. Oil India Ltd. v/s CIT– (1982) 138 ITR 836 (Calcutta), PCIT Vs Oil India Ltd. – (2019) 103 Taxmann.com 339 (Gauhati), Smt. Renuka Philip vs ITO -(2018) 409 ITR 567 (Madras), et. al.] In this case, the purpose of revision u/s 263 is to deny the exemption u/s 11 on another ground though the exemption u/s 11 has been denied by the Ld. AO in his order w/s 143(3) albeit on a different ground.…

M/S JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 274/JPR/2021[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur14 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.274/JPR/2021 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years :2014-15 M/s Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. 3, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. cuke Vs. Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCJ 0763 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Sh. Manish Agarwal(C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Sh. Ajey Malik (CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 15/02/2

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Ajey Malik (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…3(1), Expln. cl. (c) 216 ITR 833 CIT vs. Saraf Bandhu Pvt. Ltd. (Bom.) Revision – Appeal – Appeal from assessment order – Original order merges in appellate order – Original order cannot be revised by Commissioner to Income Tax – Income Tax Act, 1961, s. 263. 138 ITR 836 Oil India Ltd. vs. CIT (Cal.) Where an appeal is preferred before the AAC and a subject is particularly raised, the Commissioner cannot revise such an order taking into account an aspect not dealt with by the AAC. In view of above, it is submitted that by virtue of Doctrine of Merger, Revision proceedings initiated and completed by ld. PCIT are n…

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

…any aspect of an issue has been specifically considered by the CIT(Appeals), the entire issue merges with the order of CIT(Appeals) and no other aspect of that issue can be subjected to revision under section 263 of the Act: Oil India Ltd. v. CIT, Calcutta: 138 ITR 836 Smt. Sujatha Grower v. DICT: 74 TTJ 347 Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co. Ltd v. ACIT: 74 TTJ 67 Saw Pipes Limited v. ACIT: 94 TTJ 1036 Sonal Garments v. JCIT: 95 ITD 363 Maricolndustries Ltd. v. ACIT: 115 TTJ 497 In view of the aforesaid, the assessment order qua the issues/ claim, which was subject matter of appeal before the CIT(A) and ITAT (d…

BIZ SECURE LABS PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1,, PUNE

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

ITA 1406/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1406/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vardhaman JainFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

…order of ld.CIT(A) as the power of revision u/s 263 is not available to the ld.PCIT and in this connection, he relied on the following judgments : 1) Sonal Garments (Mum) 95 ITD 363. 2) CIT Vs. Shashi Theatre (Guj) 248 ITR 126. 3) Oil India Ltd Vs. CIT (Cal) 138 ITR 836. 4) CIT Vs. Fortleza Developer (Mum) 141 ITD 133 (confirmed by High Court in 374 ITR 510). 7. On the other hand, the ld.CIT D.R. vehemently opposed the submissions of the Ld.A.R. that the claim was examined by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. He submitted that the claim of deduction u/s 80IC comprises of two th…

AALIDHARA TEXTOOL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD,SURAT vs. PCIT-1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 94/SRT/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.94/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Alidhara Textool Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit-1, Surat. Plot No.168, Udhyog Nagar Road, Udhna, Surat -394210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacd8469M (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…o this is the case of partial merger of original assessment order with the order of CIT(A). Even in the case of the partial merger, the order u/s 263 cannot be passed as held by the decision of Gujarat High Court in case of CIT v/s. Shashi Theatre Pvt. Ltd. - 248 ITR 126 (Guj.)(HC). In the said case, the assessee claimed investment allowance under S.32A of Rs.5,35,424/- on certain fixed assets. However, the assessing officer allowed the claim only in respect of certain fixed assets. On appeal before the CIT(A), the Assessment Years.2014-15 Alidhara Textool Engineers P. Ltd. issue was decided in favour of the asse…

VIRENDRA SINGH BHADAURIA,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-3, , JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 255/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 255/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Virendra Singh Bhadauriya, Cuke Pr.Cit-3, Vs. 71, Mansa Nagar, Shirsi Road, Jaipur. Jaipur-302012. Pan No.: Aaepb 0767 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) & Shri Rajiv Pandey (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-3, Jaipur Dated 16/03/2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Jaipur Erred In:- Ground No.1:- In Holding That The Assessment Order Dt.26.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) By Assessing Officer To Be Erroneous In So Far As Is Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue On Issues Of 2

For Appellant: Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)

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

…sment order dt. 26.12.2017 has preferred Income tax appeal before Ld. CIT (A) on 13.1.2018. Assessee vehemently submits that once income tax appeal has been filed no proceedings can be initiated u/s 263 of Income tax Act, 1961. Case citation Oil India Vs. CIT 138 ITR 836 (Cal) Held It is well settled that, in an appeal preferred before the AAC, the whole assessment is open for review. It is also well settled that where an appeal is preferred and the matter raised in the appeal is the subject-matter before the AAC, then the AAC's order cannot be the subject-matter of revision by the Commissioner. In the instant ca…

SHRI HARISH KUMAR JASORIA,ALWAR vs. PR.CIT, , ALWAR

ITA 1194/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (FCA)For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(1)(vii)

…ct matter. 12. In this regard reliance is placed on the following case laws: • CIT Vs. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. 231 ITR 50 (SC) • CIT Vs. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. 157 ITR 315 (Kar.) • CIT Vs. Saraf Bandhu Pvt. Ltd. (Bom.) 216 ITR 833 • Oil India Ltd. Vs. CIT 138 ITR 836 (Cal.) • CIT Vs. Rajput 164 ITR 197 (M.P.) • M/s Dwarka Gems Vs. CIT (ITAT, Jpr) ITA No. 133/JP/09 orders dt. 30.04.2010 13. Without prejudice to above, “On merits” of the issue, details of properties purchased are tabulated for the sake of convenience: Sl. Description of Date of Date of Details of sale APB No. Property Agreement Registration c…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DSL SOFTWARE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3723/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 80HSection 90

…authorities, is invalid and unsustainable. Reliance in this regard is placed on decisions in context of section 263 which also provides that issues which have merged with orders of appellate authorities cannot be subjected to revision: • Oil India Ltd vs CIT: 138 ITR 836 (Cal HC) • CIT vs Shashi Theatre (P) Ltd: 248 ITR 126 (Guj HC) • CIT vs Mehsana District Co-op Mil Producers Union Ltd: 263 ITR 546 (Guj HC) • CIT vs Nirma Chemicals Works Pvt Ltd: 309 ITR 67 (Guj HC) • PCIT vs H Nagaraja: 406 ITR 242 (Kar HC) • CIT vs SRA Systems Ltd: [2019] 410 ITR 392 (Mad HC) – 10A issue In that view of the matter, reassessm…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DSL SOFTWARE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3722/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 80HSection 90

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DSL SOFTWARE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2310/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 80HSection 90

SRI GOVIND LAL RATHI,KOLKATA vs. PR. CIT-15, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 525/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 525/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sri Govind Lal Rathi -Vs.- Pr. C.I.T., Kol-15, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Adipr 0507 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Sunil Surana, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri R.S.Biswas, Cit Date Of Hearing : 14.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.S.Biswas, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(14)Section 263

…go on the ld CIT with respect to exercise of revisionary jurisdiction on assessments which have been subject matter of appeal. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Oil India Ltd vs CIT reported in 138 ITR 836 (Cal) wherein, the Hon’ble Court interpreting the scope of powers of the Commissioner u/s 263 of the Act held that where an appeal is preferred before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) and a subject is particularly raised, the Commissioner cannot revise such an order taking into account an aspect not dealt by the AAC. 6.1.1. We find tha…

M/S AB (WINES) STORES,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, KOLKATA-14, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 901/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.901/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ab (Wines) Stores -Vs.- Pr. C.I.T., Kolkata-14 Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aajfa 6312 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri R.S.Biswas, Cit Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.S.Biswas, CIT

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

…go on the ld CIT with respect to exercise of revisionary jurisdiction on assessments which have been subject matter of appeal. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Oil India Ltd vs CIT reported in 138 ITR 836 (Cal) wherein, the Honble Court interpreting the scope of powers of the Commissioner u/s 263 of the Act held that where an appeal is preferred before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) and a subject is particularly raised, the Commissioner cannot revise such an order taking into account an aspect not dealt by the AAC. 10.1. We find that…

GANESHDAS RAMGOPAL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 495/KOL/2015[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2017AY 1999-2000

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year : 1999-2000

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 244ASection 264

…authority has been accepted by the Revenue and the same cannot be reopened at this stage in the manner it has been attempted.—T.S. Balaram, ITO vs. Volkart Brothers (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) : TC 53R.165 and Oil India Ltd. vs. CIT (1982) 27 CTR (Cal) 259 : (1982) 138 ITR 836 (Cal) : TC 57R.665 relied on; CIT vs. Method Trading & Investment Ltd. (2001) 165 CTR (Cal) 541 : (2000) 246 ITR 588 (Cal) applied; Zdzizlaw Skakuz vs. CIT (1986) 50 CTR (AP) 39 : (1986) 158 ITR 420 (AP) : TC 32R.599, Sirsa Industries vs. CIT (1983) 36 CTR (P&H) 130 : (1984) 147 ITR 238 (P&H) : TC 13R.372 and Sait Nagjee Purushotam & Co. Ltd. vs.…

BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, impugned order dated 31

ITA 2193/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Anadi N Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Chander, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 263

…Polymers 341 ITR 537 4. Jewel of India vs. ACIT 325 ITR 92 5. Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT 263 ITR 437 6. CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 7. ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 8. CIT vs. Nirav Modi 71 taxmann.com 272 9. Oil India Ltd. vs. CIT 138 ITR 836 10. CIT vs. Sashi Theatre Pvt. Ltd. 248 ITR 126 11. CIT vs. Nirma Chemicals Works (P.) Ltd. 182 Taxman 183 12. CIT vs. K. Sera Sera Productions Ltd. 374 ITR 503 13. CIT vs. Salonah Tea Co. Ltd. 62 taxman 51 14. Mrs. Sujata Grover vs. DCIT 74 TTJ 347 7 FIT For PUBLICATION (AM) (JM) 15. Sonal Garments vs. JCIT 95 ITD 363 16. Marico Industries Ltd.…

SLUM REHABILITATION AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2435/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri S E Dastur &For Respondent: Shri Deepkant Prasad

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

…(A). In support of his contention that there is a complete merger of the matter, he strongly relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Nirma Chemicals Pvt Ltd [2009] 309 ITR 67 and in the case of Shashi Theater Pvt Ltd [2000], 248 ITR 126. Referring to these decisions, he submitted that in these cases, the CIT(A) has allowed the assessee’s appeal directing the AO to grant relief u/s 80I as claimed by the assessee. Thereafter revisionary action u/s 263 was initiated to disallow the relief u/s 80IA on a different ground. In this background, the Hon’ble High Court held that CIT could…