What is Smt. Renuka Philip v. ITO authority for?

Revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act is barred if the issue in question is already pending appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), as per Explanation 1(c) to Section 263.

How many judgments cite Smt. Renuka Philip v. ITO?

85 judgments on BharatTax cite Smt. Renuka Philip v. ITO (409 ITR 567), spanning 2019 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Smt. Renuka Philip v. ITO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 68, Section 142(1), Section 147, Section 69C.

Smt. Renuka Philip v. ITO (409 ITR 567)

JIGNASA ATULKUMAR SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1140/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member ITA No: 1140/Ahd/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jignasa Atulkumar Shah The PR.CIT-1, 4 Somalay Bunglows, Ahmedabad Sarasvati Soc., Vs Jain Merchant, Paldi, Ahmedabad, Gujarat PAN: APZPS1602N (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee Represented: Shri M.S. Chhajed, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 11-02-2026 Date of pronouncement : 24-02-2026 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by the Assessee…

MAHENT BABA ISHWAR SHAH,KALANAUR, ROHTAK vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2297/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2020-21 Mahent Baba Ishwar Shah, Vs. Pcit, Dera Mahent Baba Ishwar Shah, Rohtak, Near Bus Stand, Income Tax Office, Near Pnb Bhiwani Road, Rohtak. Kalanaur, Distt. Rohtak, Rohtak. Pan: Abspi7267G

For Appellant: Shri Navin Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Jitendra Singh, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 144Section 263Section 69A

…nt proceedings and once a plausible view has been taken by the AO, there was no occasion for the PCIT for revising the order and setting aside the assessment order. The ld. AR of the assessee has referred and relied the following case laws:- (i) Renuka Philip 409 ITR 567 (Mad); 4 Vam Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. 418 ITR 723 (All); (iii) Corporate International Financial Services Ltd., ITA No.218, 220, 221, 223, 240, 349 & 243/Del/2024 (ITAT Delhi Benches); (iv) Vandana Jain, ITA No.2341 to 2343/Del/2025 (ITAT Delhi Benches) 6. We have also heard the ld. DR who has supported the impugned order passed by the Ld. PC…

VAKSONS METAPLAST PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), DELHI

In the result, the appeal, filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2218/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 139Section 143Section 153Section 153CSection 234ASection 263Section 69C

…anation-1 to Section 263 of the Act, which provides that when appeal is pending before the Commissioner, the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act is barred. Reliance is placed upon the judgment in the case of Smt. Renuka Philip vs. ITO (2018) 409 ITR 567 (Mad), the relevant paragraphs of which are extracted hereunder….. Reliance is also placed on the following judgments: - - CIT v. Vam Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., [2019] 418 ITR 723 (All), dt. 20.08.2019, Allahabad High Court - Smt. Sainulaptheen Katheeja Umma v. ITO, I. T.A. No. 2641Chny12022, dt. 15.02.2023, ITAT Chennai - ACC Limited, Cement v.…

VAKSONS METAPLAST PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), DELHI

In the result, the appeal, filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2217/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 139Section 143Section 153Section 153CSection 234ASection 263Section 69C

…anation-1 to Section 263 of the Act, which provides that when appeal is pending before the Commissioner, the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act is barred. Reliance is placed upon the judgment in the case of Smt. Renuka Philip vs. ITO (2018) 409 ITR 567 (Mad), the relevant paragraphs of which are extracted hereunder….. Reliance is also placed on the following judgments: - - CIT v. Vam Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., [2019] 418 ITR 723 (All), dt. 20.08.2019, Allahabad High Court - Smt. Sainulaptheen Katheeja Umma v. ITO, I. T.A. No. 2641Chny12022, dt. 15.02.2023, ITAT Chennai - ACC Limited, Cement v.…

VAKSONS METAPLAST PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), DELHI

In the result, the appeal, filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2216/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 139Section 143Section 153Section 153CSection 234ASection 263Section 69C

…anation-1 to Section 263 of the Act, which provides that when appeal is pending before the Commissioner, the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act is barred. Reliance is placed upon the judgment in the case of Smt. Renuka Philip vs. ITO (2018) 409 ITR 567 (Mad), the relevant paragraphs of which are extracted hereunder….. Reliance is also placed on the following judgments: - - CIT v. Vam Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., [2019] 418 ITR 723 (All), dt. 20.08.2019, Allahabad High Court - Smt. Sainulaptheen Katheeja Umma v. ITO, I. T.A. No. 2641Chny12022, dt. 15.02.2023, ITAT Chennai - ACC Limited, Cement v.…

VANDANA JAIN,SONIPAT vs. PCIT(CENTRAL)-1, DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2343/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2341 To 2343/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2019-20 बनाम Vandana Jain Pcit (Central), Veersons Building, Gohana Road, Vs. Delhi-1. Fazilpur B.O. Barwasni (202), Sonipat, Haryana, India. Pan No.Aampj6134E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 154Section 234ASection 263Section 68

…O on account of commission and the entire transaction is under appeal the Ld. PCIT lacks jurisdiction to invoke the provisions u/s 263 of the Act. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Smt. Renuka Philp vs. ITO (409 ITR 567) and the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vam Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (418 ITR 723) the assessee also made the following elaborate submissions: ITA Nos. 2341 to 2343/DEL/2025 VANDANA JAIN ITA Nos. 2341 to 2343/DEL/2025 VANDANA JAIN 3. On the other hand, the Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the author…

VANDANA JAIN,SONIPAT vs. PCIT(CENTRAL)-1, DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2342/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2341 To 2343/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2019-20 बनाम Vandana Jain Pcit (Central), Veersons Building, Gohana Road, Vs. Delhi-1. Fazilpur B.O. Barwasni (202), Sonipat, Haryana, India. Pan No.Aampj6134E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 154Section 234ASection 263Section 68

…O on account of commission and the entire transaction is under appeal the Ld. PCIT lacks jurisdiction to invoke the provisions u/s 263 of the Act. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Smt. Renuka Philp vs. ITO (409 ITR 567) and the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vam Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (418 ITR 723) the assessee also made the following elaborate submissions: ITA Nos. 2341 to 2343/DEL/2025 VANDANA JAIN ITA Nos. 2341 to 2343/DEL/2025 VANDANA JAIN 3. On the other hand, the Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the author…

VANDANA JAIN,SONIPAT vs. PCIT(CENTRAL)-1, DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2341/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2341 To 2343/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2019-20 बनाम Vandana Jain Pcit (Central), Veersons Building, Gohana Road, Vs. Delhi-1. Fazilpur B.O. Barwasni (202), Sonipat, Haryana, India. Pan No.Aampj6134E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 154Section 234ASection 263Section 68

…O on account of commission and the entire transaction is under appeal the Ld. PCIT lacks jurisdiction to invoke the provisions u/s 263 of the Act. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Smt. Renuka Philp vs. ITO (409 ITR 567) and the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vam Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (418 ITR 723) the assessee also made the following elaborate submissions: ITA Nos. 2341 to 2343/DEL/2025 VANDANA JAIN ITA Nos. 2341 to 2343/DEL/2025 VANDANA JAIN 3. On the other hand, the Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the author…

SANJAY SINGH RANA,DELHI vs. PCIT, DELHI-20, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3463/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3463/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2015-16] Sanjay Singh Rana Vs. The P.C.I.T S-222, School Block Delhi - 20 Shakarpur, Delhi PAN – AAKPR 6259 E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv Shri Shilpa Gupta, CA Department By : Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 10.11.2025 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, A.M:- This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of ld. PCIT,…

SRI EDUPAYALA VANA DURGA BHAVANI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

ITA 399/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us:

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 69A

…आयकर अपील"य "याया"धकरण म", हैदराबाद ‘ए’ ब"च, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad "ी रवीश सूद, माननीय "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी मधुसूदन साव"डया, माननीय लेखा सद"य SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.399/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Sri Edupayala Vana Durga Vs. The Income Tax Officer Bhavani Ward-1 Hyderabad Sangareddy PAN : AASAS1857Q (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent) करदाता का "ितिनिध"/ : Shri T.Chaitanya Kumar, Assessee Advocate, AR Represented by राज" का "ितिनिध"/ : Dr. U. Mini…

M/S. PARISHRAM BUILDERS,,VERAVAL vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,, RAJKOT

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

ITA 98/RJT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.98/Rjt/2021 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Parisharam Builders The Pr. Commissioner Of बनाम Krunal Complex, Income Tax, Rajkot-1, 1St Floor, Junagadh Road, Veraval Vs. Rajkot Gujarat-362266 Pan : Aacfp5403G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, राजकोट "यायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं /.ITA No.98/RJT/2021 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Parisharam Builders The Pr. Commissioner of बनाम Krunal Complex, Income Tax, Rajkot-1, 1st Floor, Junagadh Road, Veraval Vs. Rajkot Gujarat-362266 PAN : AACFP5403G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.AR राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date of He…

AMARENDRA FINANCIAL PVT.LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL) KNP , MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2526/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: the tribunal. Before us, assessee also take additional grounds of appeal which are admitted as they are purely legal in nature and requires no verification of facts by placing reliance on the judgment of hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. reported in 229 ITR 383(SC).

Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 263Section 68

…eous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue are subject matter of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Smt. Renuka Philip Vs. The Income Tax Officer reported in [2018] 409 ITR 567 (Mad.). Further judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi in the case of M/s Corporate International Financial Services Ltd. vs. PCIT (Central), Delhi reported in 2025(6) TMI 2009-ITAT, Delhi vide order dated 27.06.2025 is relied by the assessee. Accordingly, prayer is made that the order passed u/s 263 being without jurisdiction liable to…

GAJANAND FINANCIAL CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 126/NAG/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…the petitioner. In fact, the consequential order would render the appeal otiose and leaving the assessee high and dry. We place reliance on following decision to fortify our contentions. (i) Madras High Court in CIT v. Vam Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. [(2018) 409 ITR 567] (ii) Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Vam Resorts and Hotels P. Ltd. [(2019) 418 ITR 723] It is well-settled law that once the proceedings are before Ld. CIT(Appeals) in respect of certain issues, then the same issue again cannot be re-agitated by taking recourse to proceedings under section 236 of the Act (iii) Smt. Renuka Philip v. ITO 409 ITR 5…

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

…tter being pending before\nCIT(A), the ld.PCIT could not have invoked jurisdiction u/s 263 when\nthe entire issue of purchase from NTPL was pending before CIT(A).\nReliance is placed on CIT vs Vam Resorts and Hotels P.Ltd 418\nITR 723(All), Smt. Renuka Philip 409 ITR 567(All) and also\nK.Anthalakshmi in ITA No.340/Chen/2022.\n4.2 The ld.DR has placed reliance on the impugned revision order.\n5. We have carefully examined the facts of the case. We find that\nas per the assessment order, pages-4 to 7 on paras 3. 3. to 3.3.5, the AO\nhas discussed all the relevant facets of the above purchase and the\ndetails submi…

M/S. CANVAS DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2416/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms Madhumita Roym/S. Canvas Developers Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, C-152, Nirman Vihar, Ward-5(3), New Delhi-92 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcc4708E Assessee By : Shri K. V. S. Gupta, Adv Revenue By: Shri Shankar Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/07/2025

For Appellant: Shri K. V. S. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shankar Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54FSection 68

…hen the issue was pending before the ld CIT(A), the ld PCIT cannot invoke revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act to address the very same issue. This has been adjudicated by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Smt. Renuka Philip Vs. ITO reported in 409 ITR 567 (Mad). In that case also, show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act was issued by the Administrative Commissioner when the appeal was pending before the CIT(A). The same is the case before us herein. The relevant operative portion of the order of Hon’ble Madras High court is reproduced herein:- “21. With regard to the merits of the case, the learned…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 13 KOLKATA vs. RAJESH KUMAR JALAN

Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed and

ITAT/72/2025HC Calcutta03 Jul 2025

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date : 3Rd July, 2025.

Section 147Section 260ASection 263

…appellate authority has been placed before us for consideration. Thus, we find that the learned Tribunal was fully justified in allowing assessee’s appeal. At this juncture, we take note of the decision in the case of Smt. Renuka Philip vs. ITO, [2018] 409 ITR 567 (Mad)], wherein the court took into consideration Clause (c) of Explanation 1 to section 263 of the Act wherein it is clearly stated that 4 when an appeal is pending before the Commissioner, the exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 is barred. For all the above reasons, we find no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the l…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 13 KOLKATA vs. RAJESH KUMAR JALAN

Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed and

ITAT/73/2025HC Calcutta03 Jul 2025

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date : 3Rd July, 2025.

Section 147Section 260ASection 263

…appellate authority has been placed before us for consideration. Thus, we find that the learned Tribunal was fully justified in allowing assessee’s appeal. At this juncture, we take note of the decision in the case of Smt. Renuka Philip vs. ITO, [2018] 409 ITR 567 (Mad)], wherein the court took into consideration Clause (c) of Explanation 1 to section 263 of the Act wherein it is clearly stated that 4 when an appeal is pending before the Commissioner, the exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 is barred. For all the above reasons, we find no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the l…

MUHAMMAD ZAMEER QURESHI,BAREILLY vs. PR. CIT, BAREILLY

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 344/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Muhammad Zameer Qureshi V. The Pcit 180, Azam Nagar Bareilly Bareilly Tan/Pan:Aacpz6783H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Neeraj Kumar, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Neeraj Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 139(4)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 69

…e case of the assessee deserves to be quashed. 3.2 The Ld. A.R. further submitted that similar view has also been taken by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Smt. Renuka Philip vs. Income Tax Officer, Business Ward-XV(2), Chennai reported in [2018] 409 ITR 567 (Chennai). ITA No.344/LKW/2024 Page 7 of 22 3.3 The Ld. A.R. submitted that for this reason alone the proceedings under section 263 of the Act were bad in law and deserved to be quashed. 3.4 On merits of the case, the Ld. A.R. argued that the issue before the AO during the course of re-assessment proceedings was to examine the nature and sourc…

CORPORATE INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL),DELHI-1, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed

ITA 243/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sita Shrivastava, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 37(1)Section 68Section 69C

…ect matter of dispute before the ld CIT(A) cannot be subjected to revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by the ld PCIT. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of the Hon‟ble Madras High Court in the case of Smt Renuka Philip Vs. ITO reported in 409 ITR 567 (Mad). Per contra, the ld DR vehemently supported the order of the ld PCIT and submitted that the ld PCIT was duly justified in assuming revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act as the ld AO had committed a gross error by not disallowing the interest paid on unsecured loan after having decided to treat the unsecured loan as bogus and subjecting t…

CORPORATE INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL),DELHI-1, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed

ITA 240/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sita Shrivastava, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 37(1)Section 68Section 69C

…ect matter of dispute before the ld CIT(A) cannot be subjected to revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by the ld PCIT. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of the Hon‟ble Madras High Court in the case of Smt Renuka Philip Vs. ITO reported in 409 ITR 567 (Mad). Per contra, the ld DR vehemently supported the order of the ld PCIT and submitted that the ld PCIT was duly justified in assuming revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act as the ld AO had committed a gross error by not disallowing the interest paid on unsecured loan after having decided to treat the unsecured loan as bogus and subjecting t…

Smt. Renuka Philip v. ITO

What is Smt. Renuka Philip v. ITO authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Smt. Renuka Philip v. ITO

JIGNASA ATULKUMAR SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

MAHENT BABA ISHWAR SHAH,KALANAUR, ROHTAK vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

VAKSONS METAPLAST PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), DELHI

VAKSONS METAPLAST PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), DELHI

VAKSONS METAPLAST PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), DELHI

VANDANA JAIN,SONIPAT vs. PCIT(CENTRAL)-1, DELHI

VANDANA JAIN,SONIPAT vs. PCIT(CENTRAL)-1, DELHI

VANDANA JAIN,SONIPAT vs. PCIT(CENTRAL)-1, DELHI

SANJAY SINGH RANA,DELHI vs. PCIT, DELHI-20, DELHI

SRI EDUPAYALA VANA DURGA BHAVANI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

M/S. PARISHRAM BUILDERS,,VERAVAL vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,, RAJKOT

AMARENDRA FINANCIAL PVT.LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL) KNP , MEERUT

GAJANAND FINANCIAL CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) NAGPUR, NAGPUR

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

M/S. CANVAS DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 13 KOLKATA vs. RAJESH KUMAR JALAN

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 13 KOLKATA vs. RAJESH KUMAR JALAN

MUHAMMAD ZAMEER QURESHI,BAREILLY vs. PR. CIT, BAREILLY

CORPORATE INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL),DELHI-1, DELHI

CORPORATE INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL),DELHI-1, DELHI