Smt. Renuka Philip v. ITO

409 ITR 567High Court2018#1350 most cited

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.

85

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Smt. Renuka Philip v. ITO · Section 263 revision · PCIT revisional jurisdiction · appeal pending before CIT(A) · Explanation 1(c) to Section 263 · bar to revision · assessment order · plausible view by AO · prejudicial to interest of revenue · Chennai High Court

Also reported as

101 Taxmann.com 119

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 143(3)Section 68Section 142(1)Section 147Section 69CSection 234ASection 115BBE

Issues it is cited on

section 263(1)revision under section 263revision u/s 263section 54fprejudicial to interest of revenuerectification u/s 154section 120section 54section 144ainterest u/s 234alack of enquirymalabar industrial

Judgments citing Smt. Renuka Philip v. ITO

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 223/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

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 221/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

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 220/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

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 218/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

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…

Shefali Aggarwal, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Delhi

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

ITA 240/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 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…

M/S. Hyundai Motor India Ltd., Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Ncc-8(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2948/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2948/Chny/2024 Assessment Years: 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri S.P.Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri,, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 251Section 263Section 54Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ’ ए’’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिर्क सदस्य एवं श्री अयिताभ शुक्ला, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2948/Chny/2024 Assessment Years: 2022-23 M/s.Hyundai Motor India Limited The Deputy Commissioner of Plot No.H-1, SPICOT Industrial Park, Income Tax, Irungattukottai, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Non Corporate Circle-8(1), Kancheepuram Dist, Chennai. Tamil Nadu-602 117. [PAN: AAACH2364M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार…

Dinesh Bohra, Mumbai vs. ITO, W-1, Barmer, Rajasthan

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 373/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Bledinesh Bohra Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Unit 517, Option Primo, Andheri Tax-1, Jodhpur. East, Mumbai-400093 Pan No. Aanpb4468Q Assessee By Shri Gautam Chand Baid, C.A. & Shri Mayank Taparia, Advocate. Revenue By Shri Manoj Kumar Mahar (Cit- D.R.) Date Of Hearing 20.02.2025. Date Of Pronouncement 25.03.2025.

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

…-terminus with those of the AO and he can do what AO could do, and can also direct the later to do what the later has failed to do so. 10. On the given set of facts, the ratio of decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Smt. Renuka Philip vs. ITO (409 ITR 567) would apply wherein the Hon'ble Court held as under: - 22. The above explanation makes it clear that when the appeal is pending before the Commissioner, the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act is barred. The Commissioner in the order dated 14.03.2012 states that the appeal pertains to the claim made by the assessee under Sectio…

Vanavil Estate, Chennai vs. PCIT Central, Chennai

In the result, the appeal for both AYs 2017

ITA 926/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.925 & 926/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. Vanavil Estate, The Pcit (Central), 4/20, Duraiswamy Reddy Street, Chennai-1. West Tambaram, Chennai-600 045. [Pan: Aalfv 0770 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh-
Section 133ASection 148Section 263

…f the Hon’ble jurisdictional Madras Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional Madras Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional Madras High Court in the case of rt in the case of Smt. Renuka Philip vs ITO (409 ITR 567) (409 ITR 567). 7. The Ld. AR further argued on merits that the impugned issue had The Ld. AR further argued on merits that the impugned issue had The Ld. AR further argued on merits that the impugned issue had already been critically analyzed in detail by the survey team as well as the already been critically analyzed in detail by the survey te…

Vanavil Estate, Chennai vs. PCIT(Central), Chennai

In the result, the appeal for both AYs 2017

ITA 925/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.925 & 926/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. Vanavil Estate, The Pcit (Central), 4/20, Duraiswamy Reddy Street, Chennai-1. West Tambaram, Chennai-600 045. [Pan: Aalfv 0770 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh-
Section 133ASection 148Section 263

…f the Hon’ble jurisdictional Madras Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional Madras Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional Madras High Court in the case of rt in the case of Smt. Renuka Philip vs ITO (409 ITR 567) (409 ITR 567). 7. The Ld. AR further argued on merits that the impugned issue had The Ld. AR further argued on merits that the impugned issue had The Ld. AR further argued on merits that the impugned issue had already been critically analyzed in detail by the survey team as well as the already been critically analyzed in detail by the survey te…

Shri Vijay Kumar Patel, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

ITA 212/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 212/Rpr/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 68

…rovisions of section 263, when the subject matter is pending before the First Appellate Authority. The case was relied upon by the Ld. AR are as under: 1) CIT vs VAM Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd (418 ITR 723) Allahabad High Court 2) Smt. Renuka Philips vs ITO (409 ITR 567) Madras High Court 3) M/s. Golden Vats Private Limited vs ACIT Central Circle-3(2), Chennai (ITA No. 416/Chny/2023) 4) Kathiravan Ananthalakshmi vs ACIT, Central Circle-1, Trichy (ITA No. 340/Chnny/2022) 5) R. M. Tradelink vs PCIT (ITA No. 68/RJT/2022- ITAT Rajkot) 11.2 Apropos, aforesaid issue, Ld. AR submitted that while the revision proceedin…

Shri Kamaluddin Popatlal Surani, Vapi vs. PCIT, Valsad

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

ITA 666/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.666/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Kamaluddin Popatlal Surani, Vs. The Pcit, A/12, Golden Park, Kabrastan Road, Valsad Vapi - 396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ajyps2442M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rajesh Upadhyaya, Ar Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 02/01/2025

Section 144Section 148Section 253(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 56(2)(x)

…en 09.11.2011 and 15.09.2020. All the payments were made by cheques. These payments are appearing in the bank statement of Bank of India which is at pages 79 to 90 of the paper book. The ld. AR relied upon the decisions in cases of Smt. Renuka Philip vs. ITO, 409 ITR 567 (Madras) and Pinki Chetan Shah vs. ITO, ITA No.3629/Mum/2023, dated 27.02.2024. 10. On the other hand, learned Commissioner of Income-tax - Departmental Representative (ld. CIT-DR) of the revenue supported the order of PCIT. He submitted that payment details are not available in the Articles of Agreement dated 30.03.2017, submitted by the appella…

Shanmugam Dhanalakshmi, Rasipuram vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Salem

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

ITA 1533/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1533/Chny/2024 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 115BSection 133ASection 147Section 263Section 68Section 69B

…nt order being revised therefore, the Ld. PCIT does not have jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act while larger matter is pending before first appellate authority and relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Smt. Renuka Philip vs. ITO 409 ITR 567 (Mad.). 6. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, relied on the order of Ld. PCIT and argued that the A.O has not made necessary verification in respect of certain income disclosed during survey therefore, as per Explanation 2 to Section 263 of the Act, the order of Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the i…

Krishnan Saravanan, Oddanchatram vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-1, Madurai

ITA 1523/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1523/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-2014) Shri. Krishnan Saravanan, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of 383/E-5D, Bye Pass Road, Income Tax-1, Oddanchatram 624 619. Madurai. [Pan: Asyps 5316H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Bharath Janarthanan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri.S.R.Karuppusamy, Irs, Cit.

For Appellant: Shri. Bharath Janarthanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri.S.R.Karuppusamy, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194CSection 263Section 40Section 40a

…ces of the case andpaper book containing pages (1-120)& case laws paper book containing pages (1-255). Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Renuka Philip Vs ITO [409 ITR 567 (Mad)] wherein the Hon’ble Court after considering clause (c) of Explanation 1 to section 263 of the Act held as under: ‘’The power under Section 263 of the Act is not exercisable under certain circumstances. In this regard, we refer to Section 263(1) explanation 1(c), which reads as follows: “Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue 263(1)...…

Ramco Industries Limited, Rajapalayam vs. DCIT, Madurai

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

ITA 1238/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1238/Chny/2024 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ramco Industries Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 47, Psk Nagar, Vs. Income Tax, Rajapalayam – 636 108. Corporate Circle, [Pan: Aaacr 5284J] Madurai.

For Appellant: Shri S. Muralidhar, FCA &For Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…u/s. 14A of the Act as per Rule 8D of the Rules is subject matter of appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld CIT(A) appeal has all power to correct the computation as per Rule 8D . The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Smt. Renuka Philip vs. ITO [2019] 409 ITR 567 (Mad.), has held that when larger issue is pending before the Commissioner of Appeal , the PCIT could not exercise power u/s 263 to revise the assessment order. We therefore, held that revision :- 5 -: order u/s. 263 of the Act passed by Ld PCIT is bad in law and therefore, liable to be quashed. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assess…

Jayshree Ravi Sancheti, Mumbai vs. PCIT-20, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2269/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No.2269/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Jaishree Ravi Sancheti, PCIT-20, 418, 4th Floor, 501, Swastik Pride, D.K. Sandu Marg, Above Union Bank of India, Vs. Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Chembur (East)-400071. Parel, Mumbai-400012. PAN : AHWPS0787P Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant /Assessee by : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, AR Revenue / Respondent by : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 26.09.2024 : 27.09.2024 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: This appeal by the as…

D.K. Constructions, Bhopal vs. Central Circle - 1, Bhopal

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 316/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 D.K.Constructions, Pcit (Central), Dk Cottage, Bhopal 24, Carat E8, बनाम/ Near Gujrati Colony,, Vs. Bawadiya Kalan, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaafd7121P Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

…umar Singh Vs. PCIT, ITA No. 132 to 135/Ind/2021 order dated 10.11.2022; CIT Vs. Vam Resorts & Page 4 of 8 D.K. Constructions, Bhopal ITA No. 316/Ind/2024 – AY 2018-19 Hotels Ltd. (2019) 418 Taxmman.com 723 (Allahabad); Smt. Renuka Phillip Vs. ITO (2019) 101 Taxmann.com 119 (Madras); RNR Devcon Vs. PCIT in ITA No. 459/Ind/2018. 5. With above submissions, Ld. AR submitted that there is no error in the assessment-order of AO. Accordingly, Ld. AR prayed that the revision-order passed by PCIT is not sustainable and must be quashed and the AO’s assessment-order must be restored. 6. Per contra, Ld. DR for reve…

Anil Goyal, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-13(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 370/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Anil Goyal, Principal C-2601, Oberoi Garden, Commissioner of Thakur Village, Income Tax-5, Vs. 515, 5th Floor, Kandivali (East), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhawan, Maharashtra-400 101 M.K. Road, PAN: ABLPG4889M Mumbai – 400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, C.A. Revenue by : Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 25 . 06 .2024 Date of Pronouncement : 26 . 08 .2024 O R D E R…

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

…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. It is a settled law that once a matter is decided bythe Ld. CIT(A), the CIT cannot invoke the power u/s 263 to setaside a…

Anshit Builders & Home Fin Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT Delhi-1, New Delhi

ITA 1168/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Pratap Mall, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…ause (c) of Explanation 1 below Section 263(1) is inapplicable. 3.4 Ld. AR however submitted that the position of law is differint than as held by Pr.CIT and for this he relied following judicial pronouncements. i. Smt. Renuka Philip Vs ITO [2019] reported in 409 ITR 567 (Madras) (Page 1-9 of the JPB); ii. CIT Vs Vam Resorts and Hotels (P) Ltd reported in 418 (Allahabad) (Page 10-22 of the JPB). iii. M/s Vision Habitate & Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT (ITA No.214/CTK/2019) (Page 42-54 of the JPB); iv. CWT vs. Sampathmal Chordia, Executor to the Estate of Late Neni Kavur Bai [2002] 256 ITR 440 (Madras); v. Pr. CIT…

Vg Rajamani Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. PCIT-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the order passed by the Commissioner dated 14

ITA 812/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.812/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. V.G. Rajamani Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Pcit-1 बनाम/ Vs. 66, Subbiah Mudaliar Street, Coimbatore. Thomas Street, Coimbatore-641 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcv-1589-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) Erode - Ld.Ar !"थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-10-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-01-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) Erode - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263

…e has assailed the reassessment proceedings before first appellate authority which was pending for adjudication at the time of revision of the order. In such a case, the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Smt. Renuka Philip vs. ITO (409 ITR 567) would apply wherein it was held as under: - 22. The above explanation makes it clear that when the appeal is pending before the Commissioner, the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act is barred. The Commissioner in the order dated 14.03.2012 states that the appeal pertains to the claim made by the assessee under Section 54 of the…