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

Golden Vats Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(2), Chennai

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

ITA 416/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.416/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Golden Vats Private Limited Acit बनाम New No.272, 3Rd Floor, Central Circle-3(2), Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Chennai. / Vs. Gopalapuram , Chennai-600 086. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccg-9782-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman (FCA)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 263Section 263(1)Section 3Section 40

…A) are co-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. 7. On the given 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 it was held by Hon’ble Court 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…

M/S Sunsmart Technologies Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 173/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha. Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 173/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Sunsmart Technologies Principal Commissioner Of Pvt Ltd., V. Income Tax-3, 25 Yellow Buildings, Chennai-34. 25 R.K. Salai, V Floor Opp. Hsbc Bank, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004 [Pan: Aajcs-7454-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Ms. Lekha, Ca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Ravi Babu, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31.10.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2023

For Respondent: Shri. Ravi Babu, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 263(1)Section 40

…pending before the CIT(A) for adjudication and thus is in violation of provisions of section 263(1) explanation 1(c) of the Act. Therefore, the PCIT fell into an error in passing the impugned order. 3. Case laws relied upon:  Smt Renuka Philip vs. ITO [2018] 409 ITR 567 (Mad)  CIT vs. Varn Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd., [2019] 111 taxmann 62 (Allahabad)  CIT vs. Varn Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. No. 107 of 2015 (HC Allahabad) For the above reasons and such other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that the order passed by the Ld.PCIT be deleted and render justice.” 3. The brie…

Shri Gautam Sett, Hooghly vs. P.C.I.T.-8, Kolkata Now P.C.I.T.-5, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 367/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 May 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 3Section 50C

…s) is seized of the issue and therefore jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act has been invalidly exercised by the Ld. PCIT. The case of the assessee finds support from the several decisions of various High Courts namely Smt. Renuka Philip vs. ITO reported in [2018] 409 ITR 567 (Mad), decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vam Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. [2019] 418 ITR 723 (All). In both the above decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts has held that when the appeal is pending before the Commissioner(appeals), the exercise of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act 5 I.T.A. No.367/Kol/2022 Assessment Yea…

Suresh Agarwal, Kolkata vs. PCIT, Kolkata-9, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 510/KOL/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133(6)Section 263Section 54E

…s) is seized of the issue and therefore jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act has been invalidly exercised by the Ld. PCIT. The case of the assessee finds support from the several decisions of various High Courts namely Smt. Renuka Philip vs. ITO reported in [2018] 409 ITR 567 (Mad), decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vam Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. [2019] 418 ITR 723 (All). In both the above decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts has held that when the appeal is pending before the Commissioner(appeals), the exercise of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act is not available to the Ld. PCIT. Accord…

Prabhu Kanimozhi, Erode vs. PCIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 350/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate-Erode) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan (CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 69B

…rity on 12-01-2020 and the order was awaited. Accordingly, jurisdiction u/s 263 would be bad in law in terms of clause (c) of Explanation 1 to Sec.263. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Smt. Renuka Philip vs. ITO (409 ITR 567) as well as the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. VAM Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (418 ITR 723). However, rejecting the same, Ld. AO was directed to redo the assessment afresh after verification of the facts pertaining to both the issues. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. Our findings and Adjudication 4. F…

M/S Results Investments Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Ward 5(3), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 399/CHNY/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri K. Ramakrishnan (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…lusion. The assessee also raised a plea that Clause (c) of Sec.263(1) puts a bar on initiation of revision when an appeal is pending before Ld. CIT(A). Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Smt. Renuka Philip vs. ITO (409 ITR 567) as well as the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. VAM Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (418 ITR 723). The assessee assailed the revision on merits also on the ground that the assessee was engaged in the business of making investment as was evident from its Memorandum / Articles of Association and accordingly, it had to ensure that a…

Shri Chandubhai Ramjibhai Kaqthiriya, Jasdan, Dist. Rajkot-364490 vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 70/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang Khakhar, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT [CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT ] Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2017-18 Chandubhai Ramjibhai Pr. CIT, Kaqthiriya, 49 Motisheri, Rajkot-1 Juna Pipalia, Vs (Respondent) Jasdan, Rajkot-364490 PAN: BWRPK2156F (Appellant) Assessee by: Shri Gaurang Khakhar, Ld. A.R. Revenue by: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 06-03-2023 Date of pronouncement : 14-03-2023 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2017-18, aris…

Jupax Distributors Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO Ward 12(2), Kolkata

In the result, ground of appeal raised by the assessee assessment order allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 165/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Jupax Distributors Pvt. Ltd., A.C.I.T., Circle-4,Surat. 58A, Raja Basant Roy Road, (Old A.O.: Ito, Ward 12(2), Vs. Kolkata-700029. Kolkata (Wb) Pan No. Aaacj 6952 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Physical hearing) Jupax Distributors Pvt. Ltd., A.C.I.T., Circle-4,Surat. 58A, Raja Basant Roy Road, (Old A.O.: ITO, Ward 12(2), Vs. Kolkata-700029. Kolkata (WB) PAN No. AAACJ 6952 F Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Appellant represented by Shri Ramesh Malpani, CA Respondent represented by Shri Ashok B Koli, (CIT-DR) Date of hearing 23/12/2022 Date of pronouncement 27/02/2023 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This app…

M/S. Meet Buildcon Partnership Firm, Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 64/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-D.R
Section 133ASection 144Section 263Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT [CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT ] Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2017-18 M/s. Meet Build Con Pr. CIT, Partnership Firm, Rajkot-1 Office No. 105, Rajpath Vs (Respondent) Avenue, 150 Feet Ring Road, Rajkot-360005 PAN: ABAFM0506G (Appellant) Assessee by: Shri R.K. Doshi, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-D.R. Date of hearing : 06-02-2023 Date of pronouncement : 22-02-2023 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2…

Jvr Retails Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 175/HYD/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13 Jvr Retails Private Limited Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1) C/O. Murali & Co. . Hyderabad Chartered Accountants 6-3-655/2/3, Somajiguda Hyderabad-500 082 Pan : Aaccv9428J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M.V.Joshi Appeared For P.Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.01.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda (A.M.): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.03.2021 Passed U/S. 263 By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Hyderabad Relating To A Y 2012-13. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Domestic Company Engaged In The Business Of Retails & Manufacturing Of Jewelry. It Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 49,97,390/- On 08.09.2012 Which Was Processed U/S 143(1) On 21.02.2013. Subsequently, The Ao Reopened The Assessment By Recording Reasons As Per Provisions Of Section 147. The Reasons To Believe Which Was Put Up Before The Ld.Pcit-2 For Approval & Which Has Been Reproduced By The Ao In The Body Of The Assessment Order Read As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Joshi appeared for P.Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri K.Narasimha Chary, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2012-13 JVR Retails Private Limited Vs DCIT, Circle-2(1) C/o. Murali & Co. . Hyderabad Chartered Accountants 6-3-655/2/3, Somajiguda Hyderabad-500 082 PAN : AACCV9428J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri M.V.Joshi appeared for P.Murali Mohan Rao, CA Revenue by: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 14.01.2023 Date of pronouncement: 31.01.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda (A.M.): This appeal filed by the assessee…

Vighnaharata Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1284/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Vighnaharata Trust Cit (Exemption) 1605/06 Hurrah, City Of Joy, Room No-617, 6Th Floor, Near Railway Station, Lbs Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Vs. Marg, Mulund West, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai- 400 012 400 080 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatv8040K Assessee By : Shri. Rajeev Khandelwal Revenue By : Shri. Achal Sharma Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri. Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri. Achal Sharma CIT DR
Section 10Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 292B

…referred to the detailed paper book containing 174 pages. He submitted that i. When appeal on the same issue is pending before the ld.CIT(A) the CIT could not have invoked jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act. In view of the decision of Smt. Renuka PhillipVs. ITO 409 ITR 567 (Madras) he specifically submitted that explanation ITO No. 1284/MUM/2021 Vighnaharata Trust; A.Y. 2011-12 section 263(1)(c) makes it clear that with the appeal is pending before the CIT, the exercise of jurisdiction u/s. 263 is barred. He specifically referred to Para No. 22 of that said order. ii. Even, otherwise on the merits, he submitted th…

H B Exports, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT, Delhi

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

ITA 806/DEL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. Baranwal, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 50Section 50C

…clearly shows that even the PCIT has invoked the provisions of Section 50C of the Act while remitting the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. 19. An identical issue was considered by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Smt Renuka Philip 409 ITR 567 and by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Vam Resorts & Hotels Pvt Ltd 418 ITR 723. 20. In both the decisions of the Hon'ble High Courts, it has been held that when an appeal is pending before the ld. CIT(A), exercise of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act is barred. 21. Considering the facts of the case in totality, we set aside the…

Shri Arvind Kumar Singh, Bhopal vs. The Pr CIT-1, Bhopal

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

ITA 135/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Deshpandey, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos.132 to135/Ind/2021 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 to 2015-16) Shri Arvind Kumar Singh, Vs. Principal Commissioner of 5, Nafees complex, 210, Income Tax-1, Zone-1, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal Bhopal PAN No.BGQPS2705D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri S.S. Deshpandey, C.A. Respondent by : Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 11.10.2022 10 .11.2022 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R PER BENCH: The bunch of appeals fil…

Shri Arvind Kumar Singh, Bhopal vs. The Pr CIT-1, Bhopal

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

ITA 134/IND/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Deshpandey, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos.132 to135/Ind/2021 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 to 2015-16) Shri Arvind Kumar Singh, Vs. Principal Commissioner of 5, Nafees complex, 210, Income Tax-1, Zone-1, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal Bhopal PAN No.BGQPS2705D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri S.S. Deshpandey, C.A. Respondent by : Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 11.10.2022 10 .11.2022 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R PER BENCH: The bunch of appeals fil…

Shri Arvind Kumar Singh, Bhopal vs. The Pr CIT-1, Bhopal

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

ITA 133/IND/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Deshpandey, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos.132 to135/Ind/2021 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 to 2015-16) Shri Arvind Kumar Singh, Vs. Principal Commissioner of 5, Nafees complex, 210, Income Tax-1, Zone-1, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal Bhopal PAN No.BGQPS2705D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri S.S. Deshpandey, C.A. Respondent by : Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 11.10.2022 10 .11.2022 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R PER BENCH: The bunch of appeals fil…

Shri Arvind Kumar Singh, Bhopal vs. The Pr CIT-1, Bhopal

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

ITA 132/IND/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Deshpandey, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos.132 to135/Ind/2021 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 to 2015-16) Shri Arvind Kumar Singh, Vs. Principal Commissioner of 5, Nafees complex, 210, Income Tax-1, Zone-1, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal Bhopal PAN No.BGQPS2705D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri S.S. Deshpandey, C.A. Respondent by : Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 11.10.2022 10 .11.2022 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R PER BENCH: The bunch of appeals fil…

M/S Uma Glass Works, Agra vs. Pr.CIT.-1, Agra

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2014-15 and

ITA 18/AGR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम M/S Uma Glass Works Pcit, 22, Near Industrial Estate, Vs. Agra-1, Firozabad - 283203 Uttar Pradesh.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…m Resorts & Hotels (P) Ltd. (418 ITR 723) and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd., (231 ITR 50). Reliance was also place on the following decisions for the above proposition. i) Smt. Renuka Philip Vs ITO (409 ITR 567 (Mad)). ii) CIT Vs. Ratilal Bacharilal & Sons (282 ITR 457 (Bom)) iii) Parin Furniture Ltd. Vs. PCIT, ITA Ns.86 to 89/Rjt/2022 Dt: 20.07.2022 iv) Kathivaran Ananthalakshmi Vs. PCIT, ITA No.30/Chny/2022 Dt:3.8.2022 v) Rabi Pal Vs. ITO, ITA No.193/Kol/2022 Dt: 05.09.2022 vi) R.M.Tradelink Vs. PCIT, ITA No.68/Rjt/2022 Dt: 16-09-2022 I.T.A.Nos…

M/S Uma Glass Works, Firozabad vs. Pr.CIT.-1, Agra

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2014-15 and

ITA 17/AGR/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम M/S Uma Glass Works Pcit, 22, Near Industrial Estate, Vs. Agra-1, Firozabad - 283203 Uttar Pradesh.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…m Resorts & Hotels (P) Ltd. (418 ITR 723) and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd., (231 ITR 50). Reliance was also place on the following decisions for the above proposition. i) Smt. Renuka Philip Vs ITO (409 ITR 567 (Mad)). ii) CIT Vs. Ratilal Bacharilal & Sons (282 ITR 457 (Bom)) iii) Parin Furniture Ltd. Vs. PCIT, ITA Ns.86 to 89/Rjt/2022 Dt: 20.07.2022 iv) Kathivaran Ananthalakshmi Vs. PCIT, ITA No.30/Chny/2022 Dt:3.8.2022 v) Rabi Pal Vs. ITO, ITA No.193/Kol/2022 Dt: 05.09.2022 vi) R.M.Tradelink Vs. PCIT, ITA No.68/Rjt/2022 Dt: 16-09-2022 I.T.A.Nos…

Remy Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3900/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3898 To 3900/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ The Principal Commissioner Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Of Income Tax-5 Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 5481 To 5483/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-5(3)(1) Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Room No.573, Aayakar Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Bhavan, M. K. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr2195R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hiren Vepari Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Hiren VepariFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 132Section 147Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3898 to 3900/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 to 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ The Principal Commissioner GW-1060, G- Block, Bharat of Income Tax-5 Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 5481 to 5483/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 to 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ DCIT, Circle-5(3)(1) GW-1060, G- Block, Bharat Room No.573, A…

Remy Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3899/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3898 To 3900/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ The Principal Commissioner Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Of Income Tax-5 Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 5481 To 5483/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-5(3)(1) Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Room No.573, Aayakar Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Bhavan, M. K. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr2195R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hiren Vepari Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Hiren VepariFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 132Section 147Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3898 to 3900/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 to 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ The Principal Commissioner GW-1060, G- Block, Bharat of Income Tax-5 Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 5481 to 5483/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 to 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ DCIT, Circle-5(3)(1) GW-1060, G- Block, Bharat Room No.573, A…