Vedanta Ltd. vs. CIT, 279 Taxman 358 (Bom.), PCIT v. Zuari Maroc Phosphates Ltd., 432

430 ITR 121High Court2021#17916 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,487 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 54B Section 10B Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144B Section 263 Section 48

Judgments citing Vedanta Ltd. vs. CIT, 279 Taxman 358 (Bom.), PCIT v. Zuari Maroc Phosphates Ltd., 432

Avinash Dattatray Muley, Pune vs. PCIT, Pune

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

ITA 624/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 48Section 54B

…is passed without examination of the relevant details or without application of mind. 8.1 The judgment dated November 2, 2020 of the jurisdictional Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sesa Starlite Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax. Panaji, Goa [(2021) 430 ITR 121 (Bombay)] has dealt with the issue of applicability of the provisions of section 263 in detail. In this case, during the assessment proceedings, the issue of allowability of the claim of exemption under section 10B of the Income Tax Act was explained by an initial submission of the assessee and also thereafter inquired into by the Assessing Offic…

Sonal Sandeep Satav, Pune vs. PCIT, Pune-2, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 945/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…out examination of the relevant details or without application of mind. 8. The relatively recent judgment dated November 2, 2020of the jurisdictional Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sesa Starlite Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji, Goa (2021) 430 ITR 121 (Bombay)) has dealt with the issue of applicability of the provisions of section 263 in detail. In this case, during the assessment proceedings, the issue of allowability of the claim of exemption under section 10B of the Income Tax Act was explained by an initial submission of the assessee and also thereafter inquired into by the Assessing Offic…

M/S Kute Sons Dairys Ltd., Satara vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax -3, Pune

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

ITA 410/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.410/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Kute Sons Dairys Ltd., Vs. Pcit-3, Pune. S.No.406/407, At Nimbhore, Post Surwadi, Taluka Phaltan, Satara- 415523. Pan : Aabck0391C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri N. K. Rander Revenue By : Shri Keyur Patel Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.05.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Pune (‘The Pcit’) Dated 30.03.2022 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Has Erred In Initiating Proceedings U/S.263 & Passing The Order Without Proper Jurisdiction. Appellant Prays To Declare Proceedings & Order Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri N. K. RanderFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 41(1)Section 68

…sh assessment order. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vedanta Ltd. vs. CIT, 279 Taxman 358 (Bom.), PCIT vs. Zuari Maroc Phosphates Ltd., 432 6 ITR 316 (Bom.) and Sesa Starlite Ltd. vs. CIT, 430 ITR 121 (Bom.). In the light of the above discussion, we affirm the revision order passed by the ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act and, therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the assessee. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced on this 15th day of May, 2023. (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (INTURI RA…

Martin and Harris Laboratories Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai-400020

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

ITA 627/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, &For Respondent: Ms. Sailja Rai

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 263(1)Section 801CSection 80GSection 80I

…facts and circumstances of the case. The PCIT has also not held that no inquiry or verification was carried out by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the judgment of the Hon‘ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sesa Starlite Ltd. vs. CIT, Panaji, Goa : [2021] 430 ITR 121 (Bombay) [20.11.2020], relied upon by the Learned Departmental Representative would not have application in the facts of the present case. During the course of hearing, the Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant had relied upon the Hon‘ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT, Goa 11 ITA. No. 627/Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 vs. Bo…

Prabhakar Manjaji Thakre vs. Principoal C.I.T.-1, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 230/NAG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri J.P. Chandraker

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 201Section 263Section 40Section 54E

…allowed the claim of the assessee without going through the facts. Therefore, the order passed by the A.O is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 15. We find that the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sesa Starlite Ltd. Vs. CIT (2021) 430 ITR 121 S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue - Queries raised but order without application of mind and consideration of material provided - Revision of order is held to be valid. [S. 10B] Court held that there was no consideration whatsoever of the information provided by the assessee in the context of its claim. This was a ca…