← All Phrases

“revision u/s 263”

Rectification & RevisionSection 263Section 263521 judgments

The decision most relied on for revision u/s 263 is CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan (384 ITR 200), cited in 264 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on revision u/s 263

CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan
384 ITR 200 · 2016 · Supreme Court
264
citing judgments

The Commissioner's revisional power under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act is not limited to the points specified in the show-cause notice, nor is the exercise of this power contingent upon issuing a show-cause notice.

Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CIT
321 ITR 92 · 2010 · High Court
194
citing judgments

This case clarifies the scope of the Commissioner's revisional powers under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, holding that an assessment order can only be revised if it is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, echoing the principles laid down in Malabar Industrial.

CIT v. Nirma Chemical Works Ltd.
309 ITR 67 · 2009 · High Court
149
citing judgments

An assessment order is not erroneous or prejudicial under Section 263 merely because it is silent on a claim or lacks explicit reasons for its acceptance. Revision under Section 263 is impermissible if the Assessing Officer has taken a plausible view, even if the PCIT holds a different opinion.

Babulal C. Borana v. ITO
282 ITR 251 · 2006 · High Court
138
citing judgments

An assessment order becomes erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, justifying revision under Section 263, if the Assessing Officer fails to conduct proper inquiries or apply his mind to relevant issues, such as the genuineness of purchases when corresponding sales are accepted, often leading to a remand for fresh adjudication.

CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee
341 ITR 434 · 2012 · High Court
99
citing judgments

An assessment order is erroneous for the purpose of Section 263 if the Assessing Officer fails to apply mind to relevant material, proceeds on an incorrect assumption of facts, or makes an incorrect application of law.

CIT v. Vodafone Essar South Ltd.
212 Taxmann 184 · 2013 · High Court
86
citing judgments

When an Assessing Officer conducts an inquiry and considers the assessee's disclosures, the Commissioner cannot invoke Section 263 to revise the assessment on grounds of inadequate inquiry or a mere difference of opinion. The absence of a detailed discussion on an issue in the assessment order does not automatically mean the Assessing Officer failed to apply his mind.

Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat-2 v. Shreeji Prints (P.) Ltd.
130 Taxmann.com 294 · 2021 · Supreme Court
78
citing judgments

A plausible view taken by the Assessing Officer, after due enquiry and verification, does not render an assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue for the purpose of revision under Section 263, thereby limiting the scope of revisional powers.

Income-Tax v. Gokuldas Exports
333 ITR 214 · 2011 · High Court
42
citing judgments

An assessment order is not considered erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for invoking Section 263 if the Assessing Officer has adopted one of two possible views, even if the Commissioner of Income-tax disagrees with that view. The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue' must be read in conjunction with the expression 'erroneous'.

Judgments citing revision u/s 263

M/S. Abhinav Enterprises, Indore vs. PCIT-2, Indore

ITA 339/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Abhinav Enterprises, Pr. Commissioner Of 85, Income-Tax-2, Ramchandra Nagar Extn., Indore. बनाम/ Aerodrum Road, Vs. Indore. (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan : Aanfa6300Q Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11.03.2024

Section 143(3)Section 263

raised queries during assessment- proceeding and the assessee filed details/documents. After a thorough analysis, the it was held that in such circumstances, revision u/s 263 cannot be done. The relevant paragraphs of the decision are below: “5. The learned AR before us filed a paper book running from pages

Pincity Jewlhouse Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT, CC, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 63/JPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: the date of hearing." 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 58 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of 3

For Appellant: Sh. Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Ajey Malik, CIT
Section 10ASection 147Section 253(5)Section 263Section 5

placed upon: • Hon’ble ITAT Pune Bench in Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2023) 11 TMI 794 [Compilation 79-84] has held: Revision u/s 263 - taxability of Government grants - As per CIT grants received by the assessee in such year were wrongly taken as capital receipt - HELD THAT ... record or such examination does not lead him to satisfying the assessment order erroneous etc., the jurisdiction u/s. 263 is not activated. Revision u/s. 263 is concerned, it is the sole prerogative of the Pr. CIT, who needs to take suo motu action on calling for and examining the record

Gujarat Metro Rail Corporation (Gmrc) Limited, Gandhinagar vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 397/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T R Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 397/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2018-2019 Gujarat Metro Rail Corporation Principal Commissioner Of (Gmrc) Limited, Vs. Income Tax, Block No.1, Ahmedabad-3, First Floor, Ahmedabad. Kar,Yogi Bhavan, Sector 10A, Gandhinagar-382010. Pan: Aagcm3807M

For Appellant: Shri SN Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

paper book demonstrating that interest has already been capitalized and therefore the assessment order cannot be subject to revision u/s 263 of the Act on account of non-capitalization of interest. 6.1 The Ld. AR further submitted that there was no show-cause notice issued by the Ld. PCIT with ... against the provisions of law. Thus, it was contended by the Ld. AR that on this count alone the assessment cannot be revised u/s 263 of the Act. The Ld. AR in support of his contention relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case

Shivi Holdings Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-23(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2402/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshshivi Holdings Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, G-16, Marina Acade, Circle-23(1), Connaught Circus, New New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaco2664H

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Asish Chandra Mohanty, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)

become final and the same was not subjected to reopening u/s 147 of the Act by the ld. AO or subjected to revision u/s 263 of the Act by the ld. PCIT. Hence the revenue had missed the bus to make suitable adjustment in Asst Year 2012-13 while computing

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 148/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

difference of opinion, where the ld. PCIT intended to substitute his opinion in place of the decision taken by the AO, and revision u/s 263 is not permitted on a difference of opinion; that this view is supported by the decision of “Spectra Shares and Scrips

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 147/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

difference of opinion, where the ld. PCIT intended to substitute his opinion in place of the decision taken by the AO, and revision u/s 263 is not permitted on a difference of opinion; that this view is supported by the decision of “Spectra Shares and Scrips

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

difference of opinion, where the ld. PCIT intended to substitute his opinion in place of the decision taken by the AO, and revision u/s 263 is not permitted on a difference of opinion; that this view is supported by the decision of “Spectra Shares and Scrips

M/S. Mdr Cranes & Infrastructure Private Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. DCIT, Circle -3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 353/VIZ/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Feb 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.353 /Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) M/S Mdr Cranes & Infrastructure Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Hig-1, D.No.49-58-4 Circle-3(1) Green Park Colony Visakhapatnam Akkayapalem, Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aagcm1052M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

revenue as the same was passed without making any inquiries or verification regarding genuineness of sub- contractors and hence proposed for revision u/s 263 of the Act. Accordingly issued show cause letter dated 13.05.016 to the assessee and it was asked to show cause as to why the assessment order

Kotari Srinivasa Rao, Undrajavaram Mandalam vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajahmundry

In the result, additional ground raised is allowed

ITA 335/VIZ/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.335/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Kotari Srinivasa Rao Vs. Principal Commissioner Of D.No.1-91, Canal Road Income Tax Velivennu Rajahmundry Undrajavaram Mandal West Godavari Dist. [Pan : Apjpk9870N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Md.Afzal,ARFor Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

that the order passed by the Ld.AO is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. But, in this case on hand, revision u/s 263 was initiated solely on the recommendations of the AO. It is clear that if the 263 proceedings 8 I.T.A. No.335/Viz/2019, A.Y.2014-15 Kotari Srinivasa

M/S. Rdc Ventures, Mumbai vs. PCIT-27, Mumbai

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

ITA 1915/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Rdc Ventures Vs. Principal Commissioner Office No.-110 Of Income Tax-27 Ridhhisidhhi Premises Room No. 401, 4 Th Floor, Society, Near Sahakar Tower No. 6, Vashi Talkies Tilak Nagar, Railway Station, Chembur (West) Mumbai- Commercial Complex, 400089 Vashi, Navi Mumbai -400703 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aakfr0914Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Dhran Gandhi Respondent By : Sanyogita Nagpal Date Of Hearing 29.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2024

For Appellant: Dhran GandhiFor Respondent: Sanyogita Nagpal
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. b. The issues being debatable issues, cannot be subject matter of revision u/s 263 of the Act, as the order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 02.03.2021 cannot be considered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue

Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Pr.CIT-2, Baroda

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 911/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Principal Commissioner Of Paschim Gujarat Vij. Co. Ltd., Income-Tax-2, Off. Nana Mava Main Road, Vs. Vadodara Laxmi Nagar, Rajkot-360004 Pan : Aadcp 1453 C अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02.02.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vadodara-2 [Herein-After Referred To As “Pcit”] Dated 27.03.2019, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “(1) That On Facts & In Law, The Learned Cit Has Grievously Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S.263 Of The Act, Without Recording A Satisfaction As To How The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. (2) That On Facts & In Law, The Proceedings U/S.263 Are Void As The Original Assessment Order Was Passed U/S.143 (3) Of The Act After Due Inquiry & Application Of Mind / & Is Not Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)(iia)

error being such as causing prejudice to the Revenue. In the absence of any of the two conditions the power of revision u/s 263 of the Act cannot be exercised. Section 263 itself is very clearly worded as under: “263. (1) The [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal

Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, -2, Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 909/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Madhya Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Of Vs. Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan, Income-Tax-2, Race Course, Vadodara-390007 Vadodara Pan : Aadcm 7439 H अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02.02.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vadodara-2 [Herein-After Referred To As “Pcit”] Dated 27.03.2019, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “(1) That On Facts & In Law, The Learned Cit Has Grievously Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S.263 Of The Act, Without Recording A Satisfaction As To How The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. (2) That On Facts & In Law, The Proceedings U/S.263 Are Void As The Original Assessment Order Was Passed U/S.143 (3) Of The Act After Due Inquiry & Application Of Mind / & Is Not Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 43B

solitary contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee against the order passed by the ld. PCIT in exercise of his powers of revision u/s 263 of the Act, was to the effect that there was no categorical finding of error in the assessment order by the ld. PCIT. That ... error being such as causing prejudice to the Revenue. In the absence of any of the two conditions the power of revision u/s 263 of the Act cannot be exercised. Section 263 itself is very clearly worded as under: “263. (1) The [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal

Vijay Rajnikant Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 409/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Gattani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

shown or disallowance u/s 4oA(s) of the Act. This is absolutely fresh unconnected issues, which the Pr. CIT has picked up. A revision u/s 263 is permissible when an assessment order is shown to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Both the conditions are compulsorily

Edisons Infrapower Multiventures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax Range -6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the asssessee are allowed

ITA 1208/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleedisons Infrapower & Vs. Pr. Cit, Range – 6, Multiventures Pvt Ltd Room No.501, 18Th Floor, A-Wing, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Marathon Futurex, Nm Bhavan, M.K.Road, Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaace1633J Appellant .. Respondent Essel Corporate Vs. Pr.Cit, Range – 6, Resources Pvt Ltd Room No. 501, 18Th Floor, A-Wing, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Marathon Futurex, Nm Bhavan, M.K.Road, Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aabce0473D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Jay Bhansali.ARFor Respondent: Shri Jogendra Singh.Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)

before 20.01.2023 at 12.30 PM. In case of non-compliance, it will be presumed that you have no objection to the proposed revision u/s 263 of the Act, of the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 15.02.20216 5. Further

Essel Corporate Resources Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the asssessee are allowed

ITA 1207/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleedisons Infrapower & Vs. Pr. Cit, Range – 6, Multiventures Pvt Ltd Room No.501, 18Th Floor, A-Wing, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Marathon Futurex, Nm Bhavan, M.K.Road, Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaace1633J Appellant .. Respondent Essel Corporate Vs. Pr.Cit, Range – 6, Resources Pvt Ltd Room No. 501, 18Th Floor, A-Wing, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Marathon Futurex, Nm Bhavan, M.K.Road, Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aabce0473D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Jay Bhansali.ARFor Respondent: Shri Jogendra Singh.Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)

before 20.01.2023 at 12.30 PM. In case of non-compliance, it will be presumed that you have no objection to the proposed revision u/s 263 of the Act, of the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 15.02.20216 5. Further

DCIT, Circle - 2(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Canara Bank, Bangalore

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

ITA 994/BANG/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Canara Bank, The Deputy Fm Wing, Commissioner Of Head Office, Income Tax, 112 Jc Road, Circle – 2(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 002. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaacc6106G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Lalitha RameswaranFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

Brief facts of the case are as follows: 2.1 The Assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 19/11/2010. A revision u/s 263 was initiated by Ld.CIT and an order dated 22/03/2013 was passed u/s 263 (first 263 order). The Ld.CIT directed the Assessing Officer to disallow the logo development expenses

Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 207/CHNY/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1.आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.206/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 2.आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.207/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2005-06) M/S. Southern Petrochemical Income Tax Officer बनाम Industries Corporation Limited Corporate Ward-3(1) 88, Spic House, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 034. / Vs. Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4668-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocates)-Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit)-Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-10-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-01-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj KumarFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) &
Section 143(3)Section 43B

assessee stand allowed. 10. The appeal stand partly allowed. 11.1 The assessment so framed by Ld. AO u/s 143(3) was subjected to revision u/s 263 by revisionary authority vide order dated 25.03.2011. Consequently, another assessment was framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 on 14.11.2011 making some more additions / disallowances

Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 206/CHNY/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1.आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.206/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 2.आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.207/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2005-06) M/S. Southern Petrochemical Income Tax Officer बनाम Industries Corporation Limited Corporate Ward-3(1) 88, Spic House, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 034. / Vs. Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4668-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocates)-Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit)-Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-10-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-01-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj KumarFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) &
Section 143(3)Section 43B

assessee stand allowed. 10. The appeal stand partly allowed. 11.1 The assessment so framed by Ld. AO u/s 143(3) was subjected to revision u/s 263 by revisionary authority vide order dated 25.03.2011. Consequently, another assessment was framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 on 14.11.2011 making some more additions / disallowances

Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 205/CHNY/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1.आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.204/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & 2.आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.205/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2004-05) M/S. Southern Petrochemical Acit / Ito बनाम Industries Corporation Limited Corporate Circle-6(2) / 88, Spic House, Mount Road, Guindy, Corporate Ward-3(1) / Vs. Chennai-600 032. Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4668-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocates)-Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit)-Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-10-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-01-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj KumarFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 194CSection 41(1)Section 43B

stands partly allowed in terms of our above order. 15. The assessment so framed by Ld. AO u/s 143(3) was subjected to revision u/s 263 by revisionary authority vide order dated 17.10.2008. Consequently, another assessment was framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 on 23.12.2009 making some more additions / disallowances

Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 204/CHNY/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1.आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.204/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & 2.आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.205/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2004-05) M/S. Southern Petrochemical Acit / Ito बनाम Industries Corporation Limited Corporate Circle-6(2) / 88, Spic House, Mount Road, Guindy, Corporate Ward-3(1) / Vs. Chennai-600 032. Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4668-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocates)-Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit)-Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-10-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-01-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj KumarFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 194CSection 41(1)Section 43B

stands partly allowed in terms of our above order. 15. The assessment so framed by Ld. AO u/s 143(3) was subjected to revision u/s 263 by revisionary authority vide order dated 17.10.2008. Consequently, another assessment was framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 on 23.12.2009 making some more additions / disallowances