Sipura Developers (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT

194 ITD 272Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2022#19753 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 144B Section 147 Section 148 Section 148A(d)Section 263 Section 32

Issues it is cited on

erroneous and prejudicial reason to believe section 263 section 26 section 148 section 147 section 14 india total income interest

Judgments citing Sipura Developers (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT

MAHATMA PHULE GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKAR PAT SANSTHA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. PCIT-1, PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 1049/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Mahatma Phule Gramin Bigarsheti Pcit-1, Pune Sahakar Pat Sanstha Vs. A/P Hattiwade, Ajara, Kolhapur – 416505 Pan: Aaaam2608K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None (Written Submission Filed) Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-01-2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: None (written submission filed)For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

…s. PCIT vide ITA No.335/CHD/2024 order dated 18.09.2024 for assessment year 2016-17 iv) Ashok Kumar vs. PCIT (2024) 207 ITD 583 (Delhi – Trib.) v) Sipura Developers (P.) Ltd. Vs. PCIT (2024) 168 taxmann.com 543 (Del) vi) Aishwarya Rai Bachchan vs. PCIT (2022) 194 ITD 272 (Mumbai- Trib.) 8 13. The Ld. DR on the other hand has also filed a detailed written submission. He submitted that reliance of the assessee on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (supra) is mis-placed. In that case, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that if the original reason for reopening…

NARESH KUMAR BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 221/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan SoganiFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Dhaka, CIT

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…iction by ld. PCIT, under Section 263 was held to be illegal and not as per law 3.12.i Software Consultants [2012] 341 ITR 240 (Delhi High Court) 3.12.ii Prosperous Buildcon (P.) Ltd. [2024] 463 ITR132 (Delhi High Court) 3.12.iii Aishwarya Rai Bachchan [2022] 194 ITD 272 [ITAT Mumbai] Accordingly, at the threshold level, jurisdiction assumed by ld. PCIT in the present case, apropos Issue No. 1 and Issue No 2 is illegal and not as per law and thus deserves to be dropped. Without prejudice to above, following submissions may also be considered. 4. ISSUE NO. 1: DETAILS RELATING TO ADDITIONS AS WELL AS DRAWINGS FR…

KAUSHIK INDUSTRIES (P) LIMITED,TINSUKIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TINSUKIA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 11/GTY/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati09 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mody, FCAFor Respondent: Shri N. T. Sherpa, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147(1)Section 148Section 263

…onary proceeding u/s. 263 of the Act. According to him, the impugned order passed us. 263 of the Act has no legs to stand. For this submission, Ld. Counsel placed reliance on several judicial precedents, including – (i) Aishwarya Rai Bachchan Vs. PCIT (2022) 194 ITD 272 (Mum); (ii) Yashoda Shivappa Nagangoudar Vs. ITO (2022) 138 taxmann.com 296 (Bom.); (iii) CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.); (iv) CIT Vs. Shri Ram Singh (2008) 306 ITR 343 (Raj.); (v) CIT (Exemp.) Vs. B. P. Poddar Foundation for Education (2022) 448 ITR 695 (Cal). 6. Per contra, Ld. Sr. DR placed reliance on the order of Ld.…

SMT KIRAN ANIL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. PRIN. COMM OF INCOME TAX -27, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 686/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhsmt. Kiran Anil Shah Vs. Pcit-27, 3Rd Floor, B-14, Plot No. R. No. 401, 4Th Floor, 33/34, Yogakshema Chs Tower No. 6, Vashi Ltd, Nathpai Nagar, Railway Station Ghatkopar- East, Commercial Complex, Mumbai – 400 077 Vavhi, Navi Mumbai 400 703 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Anrps9911N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 40A(3)

…urther addition can be made subsequently u/s 263 of the Act. In this ITA No.686/Mum/2022 A.Y. 2012-13 7 Smt. Kiran Anil Shah Vs. PCIT-27 regard the ld. Counsel has placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: “i. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan Vs. PCIT (194 ITD 272) ii. Hinal Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT in ITA No. 7938/Mum/2019 dated 08.03.2021 iii. K.R. Construction Vs. PCIT in ITA No. 7615/Mum/2019 dated 28.02.2020 iv. Indo Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT in ITA No. 751/Pun/2019 dated 11.01.2021 v. Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (331 ITR 236) vi. Bombay High Court in the case o…