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

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.

109 ITR 229High Court1977#2757 most cited

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.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Russell Properties v A Chowdhury · Section 263 · revision power · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · Malabar Industrial · permissible view by AO · scope of revisional power · inadequate inquiry · quasi-judicial power · arbitrary power · Calcutta High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 263 Section 143(3)Section 144B Section 142(1)Section 147 Section 148 Section 36(1)(vii)Section 80HHC(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 80hhc(3)section 263of section 17(2)section 263(1)section 80hhc section 80hh malabar industrial assessment order erroneous lack of enquiry inadequate enquiry revision u/s 263 revision under section 263

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

Navinchandra K. Patel, Surat vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/SRT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.57/Srt/2021 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Navinchandra K. Patel, Vs. The Pcit-1, Surat. 5, Kaaliytawadi Faliya, At Post Saniya Hemad, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Birpp6292D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/02/2023 10/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Surat (In Short “Ld. Pcit”], Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Dated 31.03.2021. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred In Passing Revisionary Order U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act Setting Aside The Order Of Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 24.11.2017 For The Year Under Consideration Although Said Order Is Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred In Observing That Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act Is Erroneous On The Ground That Indexed Cost Of Acquisition Of Property Is Under Assessed By Rs.2,12,58,035/-. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred In Observing That Order

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

…el HC);  Ramakant Singh Vs. CIT 140 TTJ 41 (Patna ITAT);  Vodafone Essar South Ltd. vs CIT 141 TTJ 84 (Del ITAT);  CIT Vs. Developement Credit Bank Ltd. 323 ITR 206 (2010);  CIT vs Gabrial India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (1993);  Russel Properties Pvt Ltd Vs. CIT 109 ITR 229 (Cal);  CIT Vs. Vikash Polymers 341 ITR 537 (Del); 18. In this regard, we also place reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Fab India Overseas (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT, 201 Taxman 173 wherein under the similar facts and circumstances of the case the Hon'ble court observed as under: ''In view of aforesaid, it is reiterated that the A…

Castamet Works Private Limited, Kharwa vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur

ITA 187/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Prakul Khurana (Adv.) &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’B’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM deys’k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 187/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2017-18 cuke Castamet Works Private Limited Principle Commissioner of Vs. Village – Kharwa,Tehsil- Masuda Income Tax, Udaipur Kharwa, Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AADCC 5624 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Prakul Khurana (A…

Om Prakash Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 204/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Us. In This Appeal The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Saraswat (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)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” 1.8.3 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 suo motu 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 spe…

Juniper Networks International B.V., Mumbai vs. CIT (International Taxation)-3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

ITA 982/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 982/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2014-15) Juniper Networks International B.V, Boeing Avenue 240, 1119Pz Schipol-Rijk, Amsterdam,0 Netherlands Pan: Aadcj-0974-G ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It), Mumbai -3, Room No.1601, 16Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 .....""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr. Advocate With Ms. Prachi Mehta &Shri Sandeep Bhalla ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Surabhi Sharma & Shri Milind Chavan सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 13/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Prachi Mehta &Shri Sandeep BhallaFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma &

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

…आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण मुंबईपीठ“आइ” "ी"वकासअव"थी, "या"यकसद"यएवं "ीएमबालगणेश, लेखाकारसद"यकेसम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं. 982/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2014-15) Juniper Networks International B.V, Boeing Avenue 240, 1119pz Schipol-Rijk, Amsterdam,0 Netherlands PAN: AADCJ-0974-G ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (IT), Mumbai -3, Room No.1601, 16th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 .....""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant by : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr. A…

Shrimati Ravinder Bawa, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 703/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 69A

…on of Allahabad High Court in case of C.I.T. 17 Vs Lata Sunderlal 96 ITR 310(All), the decision of the Bombay high court in case of C.I.T Vs. Paul Brothers 216 ITR 548, the judgment of the Calcutta high court in case of Russel properties Private Ltd. Vs. CIT 109 ITR 229 are also relevant. “Where assessment order is in accordance with law, it cannot be termed to be erroneous, C.I.T Vs. Ashoka Traders SLP Civil no. 2374-2375 of 1995 dismissed by the Supreme Court 212 ITR (ST) 369.” 23. It was submitted that the observations of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar on page 9 to 22 of order are based o…

Essar Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 6, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3759/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Vajresh Consultants Prcit 6, Ltd. (Earlier Known As Aayakar Bhavan, Essar Capital Ltd.), Mumbai - 400020 Vs. 40-B, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400 006 Pan: Aabce 7257R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. & Shri Hiten Chande, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ew 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." 9.11. The Judgments relied on by the learned DR in Para 6,14 and 15 of the Written Reply are distinguishable and are separately dealt with. It is therefore wrong for the Ld. PCIT and the DR to urge that the Assessing Officer has not enquired into the cost of VEL shares and has not applied his mind to the cost claimed by the assessee. Th…

Tata Sons Private Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1091/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit 2, 24, Bombay House, Room No.552, Homi Mody Street, Vs. 5Th Floor, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaact4060A M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, A.R. Ms. Arati Vissanji, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.04.2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 57

…nnexure 8. 18. Thus, it is submitted that the view adopted by the AO is also in accordance with the findings and decision of the appellate authorities (as mentioned above). As has been held by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Russell Properties P. Ltd. (109 ITR 229), when there is a decision of a higher appellate authorities and the subordinate authorities act in accordance with such decisions, it would not be possible for the Commissioner to invoke its revisionary powers under Section 263 of the Act. Accordingly, the proposed action of revision of the assessment order passed by the AO is not in accordance…

M/S. Singhal Enterprises Pvt Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., C.C. - 4(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee ( in ITA No

ITA 1072/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1071 & 1072/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2013-14 &2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…5 ITR 83 (Del HC); Ramakant Singh Vs. CIT 140 TTJ 41 (Patna ITAT); Vodafone Essar South Ltd. vs CIT 141 TTJ 84 (Del ITAT); CIT Vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd. 323 ITR 206 (2010); CIT vs Gabrial India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (1993); Russel Properties Pvt Ltd Vs. CIT 109 ITR 229 (Cal); CITVs. Vikash Polymers 341 ITR 537 (Del); M/s Singhal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos.1071 & 1072/Kol/2018 Assessment Years:2013-14 & 2014-15 14. In this regard, we also place reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Fab India Overseas (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT, 201 Taxman 173 wherein under the similar facts and circumstances of th…

M/S. Singhal Enterprises Pvt Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., C.C. - 4(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee ( in ITA No

ITA 1071/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1071 & 1072/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2013-14 &2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

Dena Bank, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

ITA 2159/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddena Bank Vs. Pcit-2 Room No.344, 3Rd Floor Accounts Department Dena Bank Building Aaykar Bhawan 2Nd Floor M.K.Road 17/B, Horniman Circle Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 023 Pan/Gir No.Aaacd4249B Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)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 assesse 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…

Acc Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT(Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 977/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/wFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 263

…prejudice caused to the Revenue. For such proposition, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Gabriel India Ltd., [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom.); ii) CIT v/s Paul Brothers, [2005] 216 ITR 548 (Bom.); iii) Russel Properties Pvt. Ltd. v/s ACIT, [1977] 109 ITR 229 (Cal.); and iv) Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2008] 25 SOT 359 (Mum.). 18. The leaned Counsel for the assessee submitted, there is no requirement in law that the Assessing Officer has to pass a detailed order covering all aspects examined during the course of assessment 18 ACC Limited proceedings. He submitted, in any case, the as…

M/S Prabhakar Paper Mills Pvt.Ltd., Bhopal vs. Pr. CIT-2, Bhopal

In the result the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act dated 31

ITA 824/IND/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jun 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2007-08 Prabhakar Paper Mills Pvt. Pr. Cit-2 Ltd. बनाम/ F-101-102, “B” R.B. Rower, Bhopal Vs. Eden Garde Chuna Bhatti, Kolar Road, Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Appellant By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca Respondent By Smt. Ashima Gupta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.06.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal At The Instance Of Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2007-08 Is Directed Against The Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Bhopal, (In Short ‘Pr. Cit’), Dated 31.07.2018 Framed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’).

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 263(2)

…o a chaotic situation. The grievance of the Revenue may be real and substantial in certain cases but such situation cannot be provided for by judicial interpretation by courts but only by an appropriate agency (Russell Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [1977] 109 ITR 229 (Cal) and K. N. Agrawal v. CIT [1991] 189 ITR 769 (All). 16. Examining facts of the instant appeal, in the light of the above judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat we observe that the assessing officer was bound to follow the direction given by the Tribunal and it was not open for him to ignore the same and further he was also not permitted…

DCIT, Cir-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Mcleod Russel India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 115/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2019AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 143(3)Section 43B

…lenging the order, it would not be at all appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year." The principle of consistency has also been applied by the jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of Russell Properties P Ltd vs. Addl CIT (109 ITR 229). I therefore find that if the provision for retirement benefits of employees made in accordance with AS-15 was considered as an allowable deduction in the past assessments, then apparently there was no reason for the AO to depart from the said position and take entirely a contrary view in AY 2008-09 so as to disallow the current year's liability…

DCIT, Cir-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Mcleod Russel India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 114/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 143(3)Section 43B

M/S. Calcutta Cricket & Football Club, Kolkata vs. ITO, Exemption, Ward 1(1). Kolkata, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1105/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 25Section 263

…late order for A.Y.2008-09 and 2009-10. The ld counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in 12 I.T.A No. 1105/Kol/2017 M/s. Calcutta Cricket & Football Club the case of Russel Properties Pvt. India vs A.Chowdhury, ACIT 109 ITR 229 wherein the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held that if the AO follows decision of Tribunal on an issue, the CIT cannot revise the same u/s.263 of the Act on the ground that an appeal has been filed against the order of the Tribunal. It was therefore submitted by the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the aforesaid decision will clearly apply to the…

Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd., Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Mumbai

In the result the grounds of

ITA 2263/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanlarsen & Toubro Infotech Pcit-2 Room No. 384, 3Rd Floor, Ltd. Taxation Department, L&T House, 2Nd Floor, N.M. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400001 Pan: Abgps5477E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri (AR)For Respondent: Shri N.S. Jangpangi (CIT-

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)Section 92

…C ), decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT versus Gabriel India Ltd 203 ITR 108(Bombay), decision of Delhi High Court in case of CIT versus Escort Ltd [2011] 338 ITR 435(Delhi), Calcutta High Court in Russell properties Private Ltd Versus ACIT (109 ITR 229 (Calcutta). 6. On merit the ld AR for the assessee strongly relied upon the decision of Special Bench of Bangalore Tribunal in case of Bicon Ltd Versus DCIT (35 taxmann.com 335) wherein it was been held that discount on ESOP is an allowable expenses under section 37 during the year of vesting. The assessing officer on the basis of information ava…

Joonktollee Tea & Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1225/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm ] I.T.A No. 1225/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Joonktollee Tea & Industries Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaacj 6577 G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B.K. Chatorvedi, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…P filed by the Union of India against this judgment vide Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) CC 9853/2008 judgment dated 01.08.2008. He relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of M/s Russells Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT reported in 109 ITR 229 (Cal) wherein it is held that, when the assessing officer had merely followed the decision of the Appellate Tribunal and when the CIT had not pointed out that there were any materials before the Income Tax Officer, not to follow the decision of the Tribunal, the order of the ITO cannot, therefore, be said to be erroneous and hence the proposed ex…

M/S Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP, Usa, Kolkata vs. CIT, (It & Tp), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 540/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 540/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Khaitan, ARFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)

Section 263Section 4Section 44A

…y.” 19. According to him the aforesaid observations of the decision are clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. Further reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Russel Properties (P) Ltd. vs ACIT 109 ITR 229 (Cal) wherein the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court was concerned with the case where the AO followed the decision of the higher authorities in an earlier assessment year while making an assessment and the Commissioner revised such order u/s 263 of the Act. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in a writ petition against the order u/s 263 of the Act observed…

Vantage Advertising Private Limited, Chennai vs. C.I.T - IV, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2044/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 2044/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Khaitan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)

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

…ing due notice of the history of the claim for deduction at 100% the hoardings has rightly allowed the deduction claimed by the assessee. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Russel Properties Ltd vs A.Chowdhury 109 ITR 229 wherein the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held that whether the AO follows the tribunal decision while passing an order of assessment the CIT u/s 263 of the Act cannot revise such order on the ground of the decision of the Tribunal was challenged by the revenue before the appellate authority. 10. The ld. DR, on the other hand, pointed out that und…

M/S Calcutta Cricket & Football Club, Kolkata vs. ITO, Exemption-1, Kolkata

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 466/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Aug 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 466/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Calcutta Cricket & Football Club -Vs.- I.T.O., Exemption-I, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaccc 6337 P] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri J.P.Khaitan, Sr.Advocate & Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2016. Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2016. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Khaitan, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 25Section 263

…sion that all these aspects were dealt by the CIT(A) in the appellate order for A.Y.2008-09 and 2009-10. The ld counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Russel Properties Pvt. India vs A.Chowdhury, ACIT 109 ITR 229 wherein the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held that if the AO follows decision of Tribunal on an issue, the CIT cannot revise the same u/s.263 of the Act on the ground that an appeal has been filed against the order of the Tribunal. It was therefore submitted by the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the aforesaid decision will clearly apply to the…