What is Russell Properties (P.) Ltd. v. A. Chowdhury, Addl. CIT authority for?

The power of revision under Section 263 is not arbitrary and cannot be exercised merely because the Assessing Officer adopted one of the permissible courses in law, even if it leads to a loss of revenue. An assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue if the Assessing Officer has taken a plausible view or conducted an inquiry, as the revisional power has limitations and cannot be used for fresh enquiries into concluded matters.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Russell Properties (P.) Ltd. v. A. Chowdhury, Addl. CIT come up under?

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

Russell Properties (P.) Ltd. v. A. Chowdhury, Addl. CIT (109 ITR 229)

Q: How many judgments cite Russell Properties (P.) Ltd. v. A. Chowdhury, Addl. CIT?

42 judgments on BharatTax cite Russell Properties (P.) Ltd. v. A. Chowdhury, Addl. CIT (109 ITR 229), spanning 2015 to 2025.

M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Kumbakonam vs. PCIT, Madurai

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 1126/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan, F.C.A. &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N., CIT

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 17(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…w the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 as also by the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Russell Properties (P.) Ltd. v. A. Chowdhury, Addl. CIT [1977] 109 ITR 229 at 243. 2. At this stage we may clarify that under para 10 of the judgment in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) this Court has taken the view that the phrase "prejudicial to the interest of the revenue" under section 263 has to be read in conjunction with the expression "erroneous" order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss o…

Birendra Singh Nirbhay, Sirsi Road Jaipur Rajasthan vs. ITO Ward 3(1) Jaipur, Ncrb Income Tax Department Statue Circle Jaipur Rajasthan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 704/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 10(38)Section 132(4)Section 69C

…stries Ltd. (2007) 288 ITR 322 (SC) the Hon'ble Apex Court held that when an order is passed by a higher authority, the lower authority is bound thereby keeping in view the principles of judicial discipline. Russell Properties (P.) Ltd. -vs.- Addl. CIT (1977) 109 ITR 229 (Cal.) the Hon'ble High Court, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of East India Commercial Co. Ltd. -vs.- Collector of Customs AIR 1962 SC 1893, held that whenever there is a decision of the higher appellate authority, the subordinate authorities are bound to follow the said decision to maintain judicial discipline.…

Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -6, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3293/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri J D Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

…w the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 as also by the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Russell Properties (P.) Ltd. v. A. Chowdhury, Addl. CIT [1977] 109 ITR 229 at 243. 2. At this stage we may clarify that under para 10 of the judgment in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) this Court has taken the view that the phrase "prejudicial to the interest of the revenue" under section 263 has to be read in conjunction with the expression "erroneous" order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss o…

M/S. City Union Bank, Kumbakonam vs. PCIT, Madurai

In the result, both the appeals for A

ITA 1479/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1478 & 1479/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2021-22 M/S. City Union Bank, Pcit No. 148-149, T.S.R Big Street, Vs. Madurai – 1. Kumbakonam – 621 001. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S. Ananthan, Ca & Ms. R. Lalitha, Ca प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025

For Appellant: Mr. S. Ananthan, CA and Ms. R. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 17(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…w the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 as also by the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Russell Properties (P.) Ltd. v. A. Chowdhury, Addl. CIT [1977] 109 ITR 229 at 243. 2. At this stage we may clarify that under para 10 of the judgment in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) this Court has taken the view that the phrase "prejudicial to the interest of the revenue" under section 263 has to be read in conjunction with the expression "erroneous" order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss o…

M/S. City Union Bank, Kumbakonam vs. PCIT, Madurai

In the result, both the appeals for A

ITA 1478/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1478 & 1479/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2021-22 M/S. City Union Bank, Pcit No. 148-149, T.S.R Big Street, Vs. Madurai – 1. Kumbakonam – 621 001. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S. Ananthan, Ca & Ms. R. Lalitha, Ca प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025

For Appellant: Mr. S. Ananthan, CA and Ms. R. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 17(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…w the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 as also by the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Russell Properties (P.) Ltd. v. A. Chowdhury, Addl. CIT [1977] 109 ITR 229 at 243. 2. At this stage we may clarify that under para 10 of the judgment in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) this Court has taken the view that the phrase "prejudicial to the interest of the revenue" under section 263 has to be read in conjunction with the expression "erroneous" order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss o…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1 Tirupur, Tirupur vs. Armstront Knitting Mills, Tirupur

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

ITA 1429/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1429/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri S.B. Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri Suraj Nahar, CA

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(xviii)Section 250

…eipt. This decision is rendered by Jurisdictional ITAT which is binding on the undersigned. In view of following decisions I am bound to abide by the decision of Hon’ble ITAT: i. ITO Vs. Siemens India Ltd & 156 ITR 11(BOM) ii. Shree Rajendra Mills Ltd vs CIT 109 ITR 229 iii. Union of India Vs Kamalakshi Finance Corporation Ltd AIR1992SC711 In view of binding judicial discipline explained by above judgments. The Jurisdictional ITAT Chennai, in clear terms has held that the amount received by the appellant is capital receipt and not taxable. Therefore, in view of jurisdictional ITAT decision even after the amendm…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1 Tirupur, Tiruppur vs. Armstrong Knitting Mills, Tirupur

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

ITA 1422/CHNY/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1422/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S.B. Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri Suraj Nahar, CA

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(xviii)Section 250

…eipt. This decision is rendered by Jurisdictional ITAT which is binding on the undersigned. In view of following decisions I am bound to abide by the decision of Hon’ble ITAT: i. ITO Vs. Siemens India Ltd & 156 ITR 11(BOM) ii. Shree Rajendra Mills Ltd vs CIT 109 ITR 229 iii. Union of India Vs Kamalakshi Finance Corporation Ltd AIR1992SC711 In view of binding judicial discipline explained by above judgments. The Jurisdictional ITAT Chennai, in clear terms has held that the amount received by the appellant is capital receipt and not taxable. Therefore, in view of jurisdictional ITAT decision even after the amendm…

Pashupati Capital Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Mumbai - 4, Mumbai

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

ITA 2985/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 135Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80G

…ctors were available from the records called for and examined by such authority. Our aforesaid conclusion gets full support from a decision of Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. (as his Lordship then was) in Russell Properties (P.) Ltd. v. A. Chowdhury, Addl. CIT [1977] 109 ITR 229 (Cal.). In our opinion, any other view in the matter will amount to giving unbridled and arbitrary power to the revising authority to initiate proceedings for revision in every case and start re-examination and fresh enquiries in matters which have already been concluded under the law. As already stated, it is a quasi-judicial power hedged in wit…

Sanjiv Soshil Mehta, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 5(2), Kautilya Bhavan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2096/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Income-tax – 1, Mumbai

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 90

…w the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 as also by the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Russell Properties (P.) Ltd. v. A. Chowdhury, Addl. CIT [1977] 109 ITR 229 at 243. 2. At this stage we may clarify that under para 10 of the judgment in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) this Court has taken the view that the phrase "prejudicial to the interest of the revenue" under section 263 has to be read in conjunction with the expression "erroneous" order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss o…

Jsw Steel Coated Products Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Mumbai - 5, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3113/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampura, CIT D/R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…w the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 as also by the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Russell Properties (P.) Ltd. v. A. Chowdhury, Addl. CIT [1977] 109 ITR 229 at 243. 2. At this stage we may clarify that under para 10 of the judgment in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) this Court has taken the view that the phrase "prejudicial to the interest of the revenue" under section 263 has to be read in conjunction with the expression "erroneous" order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss o…

M/S Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Cricle -Ltu 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2956/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…ered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 as also by the judgment of I.T.A. No. 2956/Mum/2024 10 the Calcutta High Court in the case of Russell Properties (P.) Ltd. v. A. Chowdhury, Addl. CIT [1977] 109 ITR 229 at 243. 2. At this stage we may clarify that under para 10 of the judgment in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) this Court has taken the view that the phrase "prejudicial to the interest of the revenue" under section 263 has to be read in conjunction with the expression "erroneous" order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss o…

Shree Auro Iron Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 788/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Pravin Saraswant, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 145ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 263Section 48

…w the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 as also by the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Russell Properties (P.) Ltd. v. A. Chowdhury, Addl. CIT [1977] 109 ITR 229” 1.10.3 Greenworld Corporation – [2009] 181 Taxman 111, 314 ITR 81 (SC) Held at para No. 29: “The scope of provisions of section 263 of the Act is no longer res integra. The power to exercise of suomotu of revision in terms of section 263(1) is in the nature of supervisory jurisdiction and the same can be exercised only if the circumstances speci…

M/S N.A.M. Expressway Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 580/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.580/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) N.A.M.Expressway Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle-5(1) Delhi Hyderabad [Pan : Aadcn3131D] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms Ananya Kapoor & Shri Tarun Chanana, Ar (Through Virtual Mode) रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Shiva Sewak, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 30/10/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 28/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2019 Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Ld.Pcit], Hyderabad-4 Pertaining To A.Y.2018-19 On The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Shri Salil KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Sewak, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 43B

…s. [TO 1977 CTR (SC) 32 : (1977) 106 ITR 1 (SC), Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd, vs. ITQ 1977 CTR (AP) 138 : (1978) 114 ITR 404 (AP), Dawjee Dadabhov & Co. vs. S.P. Jain & Anr. (1957) 31 ITR 872 (Cal) and Russell Properties 1M. Ltd, vs. A. Chowdhury, Addl. CIT (1977) 109 ITR 229 (Cal) relied on ." 13. The assessee also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd (supra). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the said judgment held that if the AO while making assessment has made an inadequate enquiry, that would not, by itself, give rise to Commissioner to pass ITA 2463/Mum/2015 o…

Millennium Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax -3, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1847/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanmillennium Developers Pvt. Ltd. Pcit-3, Ground Floor, Ceejay House, Vs. R. No. 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Shivsagar Estate, Dr. Annie Besant Bhavan, M. K. Road, Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aabcm6404C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri B. V. Jhaveri, Ld. Ar Department Represented By : Shri Anurag Tripathi, Ld. Dr Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 18.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.01.2025

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 253Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

…ctors were available from the records called for and examined by such authority. Our aforesaid conclusion gets full support from a decision of Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. (as his Lordship then was) in Russell Properties (P.) Ltd. v. A. Chowdhury, Addl. CIT [1977] 109 ITR 229 (Cal.). In our opinion, any other view in the matter will amount to giving unbridled and arbitrary power to the revising authority to initiate proceedings for revision in every case and start re-examination and fresh enquiries in matters which have already been concluded under the law. As already stated, it is a quasi-judicial power hedged in wit…

Raghuleela Estates Private Limited, Bandra, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2595/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A/RFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT, D/R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 24BSection 263

…w the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 as also by the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Russell Properties (P.) Ltd. v. A. Chowdhury, Addl. CIT [1977] 109 ITR 229 at 243. 2. At this stage we may clarify that under para 10 of the judgment in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) this Court has taken the view that the phrase "prejudicial to the interest of the revenue" under section 263 has to be read in conjunction with the expression "erroneous" order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss o…

Raghuleela Estates Private Limited, Bandra, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2594/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A/RFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT, D/R

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

…w the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 as also by the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Russell Properties (P.) Ltd. v. A. Chowdhury, Addl. CIT [1977] 109 ITR 229 at 243. 2. At this stage we may clarify that under para 10 of the judgment in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) this Court has taken the view that the phrase "prejudicial to the interest of the revenue" under section 263 has to be read in conjunction with the expression "erroneous" order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss o…

Nityanand Baug Co Operative Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed in the above terms

ITA 2209/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Br Baskaran & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhannityanand Baug Co-Operative Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Society Limited Income Tax Plot No. 80/83, Nity Anand Baug, R. Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway C. Marg, Chembur, Mumbai – 400 Station, Commercial Complex, 074. Vashi Navi Mumbai – 400 Pan: Aaaan6410C 703. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…ctors were available from the records called for and examined by such authority. Our aforesaid conclusion gets full support from a decision of Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. (as his Lordship then was) in Russell Properties (P.) Ltd. v. A. Chowdhury, Addl. CIT [1977] 109 ITR 229 Nityanand Baug Co-operative Housing Society Ltd; A.Y. 2018-19 (Cal.). In our opinion, any other view in the matter will amount to giving unbridled and arbitrary power to the revising authority to initiate proceedings for revision in every case and start re- examination and fresh enquiries in matters which have already been concluded under the law…

Mumbai Postal Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1051/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1050 & 1051/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17) Mumbai Postal Employees Vs. Income Tax Officer, Co-Operative Credit Ward 17(2)(1) Society Limited, Gpo Room No. 115, 1 St Floor, Building, Fort, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Mumbai – 400001 C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaajm0032G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Neena Jeph

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…e Act. This further supports the contention that the order was neither Erroneous nor Prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as the conclusion of AO in assessment orders was supported by several ITAT decisions. Refer Russel Properties P. Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT 109 ITR 229 (Cal), Annexure 9, which has clarified that where the order is based on ITAT decisions cannot be revised u/s 263 of the Act. vii. Merely because the assessment order does not contain any specific discussions and or reasoning for accepting deduction in full in respect of both the incomes, which now proposed to be denied benefit of deduction u/s 80…

Mumbai Postal Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1050/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1050 & 1051/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17) Mumbai Postal Employees Vs. Income Tax Officer, Co-Operative Credit Ward 17(2)(1) Society Limited, Gpo Room No. 115, 1 St Floor, Building, Fort, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Mumbai – 400001 C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaajm0032G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Neena Jeph

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…e Act. This further supports the contention that the order was neither Erroneous nor Prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as the conclusion of AO in assessment orders was supported by several ITAT decisions. Refer Russel Properties P. Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT 109 ITR 229 (Cal), Annexure 9, which has clarified that where the order is based on ITAT decisions cannot be revised u/s 263 of the Act. vii. Merely because the assessment order does not contain any specific discussions and or reasoning for accepting deduction in full in respect of both the incomes, which now proposed to be denied benefit of deduction u/s 80…

Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Patna vs. C.I.T. -1

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 23/PAT/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ITA No. 23/PAT/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA-PATNA ‘e-COURT’, KOLKATA [Virtual Court Hearing] Before Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ) & Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 23/PAT/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank,.................. Appellant C/o. Nirmal & Associates, Chartered Accountants, Nepali Kothi, Opp. Gasoline Petrol Pump, Boring Road, Patna-800001 [PAN:AAAAM7216M] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1,..Respondent Patna Appearances by: Shri Nishant Maitin, CA, appeared on behalf of…

Russell Properties (P.) Ltd. v. A. Chowdhury, Addl. CIT

What is Russell Properties (P.) Ltd. v. A. Chowdhury, Addl. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Russell Properties (P.) Ltd. v. A. Chowdhury, Addl. CIT

M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Kumbakonam vs. PCIT, Madurai

Birendra Singh Nirbhay, Sirsi Road Jaipur Rajasthan vs. ITO Ward 3(1) Jaipur, Ncrb Income Tax Department Statue Circle Jaipur Rajasthan

Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -6, Mumbai

M/S. City Union Bank, Kumbakonam vs. PCIT, Madurai

M/S. City Union Bank, Kumbakonam vs. PCIT, Madurai

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1 Tirupur, Tirupur vs. Armstront Knitting Mills, Tirupur

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1 Tirupur, Tiruppur vs. Armstrong Knitting Mills, Tirupur

Pashupati Capital Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Mumbai - 4, Mumbai

Sanjiv Soshil Mehta, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 5(2), Kautilya Bhavan

Jsw Steel Coated Products Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Mumbai - 5, Mumbai

M/S Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Cricle -Ltu 2, Mumbai

Shree Auro Iron Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Jaipur

M/S N.A.M. Expressway Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

Millennium Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax -3, Mumbai

Raghuleela Estates Private Limited, Bandra, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-3, Mumbai

Raghuleela Estates Private Limited, Bandra, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-3, Mumbai

Nityanand Baug Co Operative Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

Mumbai Postal Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(2)(1), Mumbai

Mumbai Postal Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(2)(1), Mumbai

Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Patna vs. C.I.T. -1