Spectra Shares and Scripts (P.) Ltd. v. CIT Hyderabad

295 ITR 283Reported decision#24281 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 28Section 56Section 80P(2)

Judgments citing Spectra Shares and Scripts (P.) Ltd. v. CIT Hyderabad

The Dhanashree Multipurpose Co-Operative Society Limited, Belgaum vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

The appeal of the assessee stands ALLOWED

ITA 119/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2020-21 The Dhanashree Multipurpose Co-Operative Society, Ltd. 722/1, Angol Road, Vidya Nagar, Belgaum-590006 Pan:Aaaad0350R . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(d)

…Co. Ltd 243 ITR 83 (SC). 5. Without prejudice action u/s 263 for revision of original order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144B on a debatable issue or when two legal views are possible is not justified in law as held by Supreme Court in the case of Max India reported in 295 ITR 283.Reference can also be made to CIT v Gokuldas Exports 333 ITR 214 (Kar) and CIT v Munjal Castings 303 ITR 23 (P&H). ITAT-Panaji Page 4 of 16 The Dhanashree Multipurpose Co-operative Society, Ltd. Vs. PCIT ITA No.119/PAN/2025, AY: 2020-21 4. In the course of hearing, the Ld. AR reiterated assessee’s solitary contention & corresponding submissions…

The Khanapur vs. S Sangh Ltd, Belgaum

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 62/PAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Y VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…sions. [Rs.2,94,067/-]. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Pr.CIT erred in revising the original order u/s 143(3) on a debatable issue or when two legal views are possible as held by Supreme Court in the case of Max India reported in 295 ITR 283.Reference can also be made to CIT v Gokuldas Exports 333 ITR 214 (Kar) and CIT v Munjal Castings 303 ITR 23 (P&H). 4. The Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rena Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd v Pr.CIT reported in 138 taxmann.com 532since Assessing Officer white framing assessment had taken a possible view and allowed assessee's claim for de…

Nco Extrusions Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 8, Mumbai

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

ITA 3662/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3662/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Nico Extrusions Ltd. Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ (Previously Known As Nico Tax – 8 Vs. Extrusions Pvt. Ltd.) Ayakar Bhavan, 12, Niraj Industrial Estate, Mumbai - 400020 Off. Mahakali Caves Rd., Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400093 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn2104R

For Appellant: Shri Paresh ShapariaFor Respondent: Shri N. P. Singh
Section 143(3)Section 263

…e provision u/s.263 of the Act. In support of his contention the learned representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the law settled in Spectra Shares and Scripts (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT Hyderabad [2013] 36 taxman.com 348 (AP) and CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 283 SC and CIT Vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. 235 CTR 336 (Delhi SC) and CIT Vs. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT Vs. Lucas TVS Ltd. 249 ITR 306 (SC). 6. On the other hand the learned representative of the department has strongly relied upon the order passed by the learned CIT(A) in question. Keeping in view of the argument ad…