“revision u/s 263”

Mukesh Bhoormal Jain, Mumbai vs. Principle CIT - 19, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

upon hereinabove, we hold that the order of the ld. AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue warranting revision u/s 263 of the Act. Hence we hold that the revision order u/s 263 of the Act passed by the ld. PCIT is hereby quashed. Accordingly

Mr. Deepak Vishnu Raut- General Manager Shri Murli Manohar Nagari Sahakari Patasanth Maryadit, Mahad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-PCIT-1, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us:-

PCIT before concluding that the order passed by the ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue warranting revision u/s 263 of the Act. Hence the entire order passed u/s 263 of the Act by the ld. PCIT suffers from this basic legal infirmity and deserves

Cricket Club of India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us:-

needs to be quashed in its entirely. The following 'new' issues have been raised and made a basis of revision u/s 263: (i) whether contributions made by members and their guests, including temporary members are covered by the principles of mutuality. (ii) whether the activities of the appellant club ... failed to appreciate that:  ld.CIT(A) whose order for A.Y. 2009-10 is the basis for issuing show cause notice for revision u/s 263 has completely misunderstood the claims made by the appellant as those being under section 11 of the Income Tax Act 1961.  Appellant is not undertaking

Hathway Investment P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT -12, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.1599/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2015-16) Hathway Investments Private Limited. Rahejas, 4Th Floor, Corner Of Main Avenue & V.P.Road, Santacruz (West), Mumbai 400 054. Pan: Aaach-1675-B ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-12, Mumbai, Room No.127, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Ajay Chandra सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/06/2022 आदेश/ Order

through the relevant material on record. It can be seen from para 4 of the ld. CIT‟s order that: “A proposal for revision u/s 263 of the IT Act, 1961 was received from DCIT(IT)-1, Pune through the Jt.CIT(IT), Pune vide letter No. Pn/Jt.CIT(IT)/263/2016-17/61 dated ... jurisdiction on the CIT to revise an assessment order which he considers erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The process of revision u/s 263 of the Act initiates only when the CIT calls for and examines the record of any proceeding under this Act and considers that

Kay Foam Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -2, Mumbai

The appeal is partly allowed

598/Mum/2021 Assessment Year: 2010-11 2.4 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no revision u/s 263 of the Act was called for. Without further prejudice to the above 3. On merits 3.1 Otherwise also, it is submitted that ... facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, on merits also, no revision u/s 263 of the Act was called for. 3.2 Without prejudice to the generality of the above, it is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no capital

Bhavani Gems P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -5, Mumbai

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Bhavani Gems Private Limited The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Dw–1370, G–Block West Core, Tax–5, Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bandra Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai–400 020 Mumbai–400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecb9471D

officer cannot be said to be erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and hence cannot be subjected to revision u/s 263 of the act by the learned PCIT. 015. Accordingly, on the first ground of non-reference to the learned transfer pricing officer ... transactions and specified domestic transaction and therefore the order of the learned that AO is not erroneous and hence cannot be subject to revision u/s 263 of the act. 016. Coming to the second issue of depreciation on goodwill, the fact shows that the assessee company has acquired all assets

Multi Commodity Exchange of India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT (Central)-4, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Blemulti Commodity Exchange Of V. Pr.Cit –(Central)-4 India Limited 6Th Floor, Room No. 663 Cts 255, Exchange Square Suren Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Chakala Andheri (E) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400093 Pan: Aadcm8239K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Shri Tanzil Padvekar Department By : Shri Sanjeev Kashyap

control over the TPO. 9. We observed that in the similar situation the Pune bench considered the similar facts wherein the proposal of revision u/s. 263 of the Act was received from DCIT(IT)-1, Pune through Jt.CIT(IT), Pune dated 25.03.2016, with a recommendation to initiate proceedings u/s. 263 ... jurisdiction on the CIT to revise an assessment order which he considers erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The process of revision u/s 263 of the Act initiates only when the CIT calls for and examines the record of any proceeding 12 Multi Commodity Exchange of India Limited

Chalk Farm Ventures P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -1, Thane

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.906/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17) बनधम/ Chalk Farm Ventures Pvt. Pcit-1 Ltd. B Wing, Ashar It Park, Vs. 6Th Floor, Wagle No.202, Delta Building, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Industrial Estate, Thane- Mumbai-400076. 400604 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcc0332A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Sanjay Parikh Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01, Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2016-17 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01 Has Invoked The Provisions U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - 2. “Ground A: Proceeding U/S 263 Of The It Act Is Invalid & Bad In Law 1. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Thane-1, (Pr. Cit) Erred In Facts & In Passing The Order U/S. 263 Without Appreciating That The Appellant Company Was Under Liquidation & No Order U/S. 263 Could Be Passed Without Giving Adequate Notice To The Liquidator Of The Appellant Company. 2. He Appellant Prays That Your Honour Hold That The Order Passed By The Ao U/S. 263 Is Bad In Law As The Same Is Passed Without Issuing Notice To The Liquidator Of The Appellant Company.

share was accepted after due verification and examination. 9. „The learned Pr. CIT ought to, have appreciated that if two views are possible, revision u/s 263 of the Act is not permissible. 3 A.Y. 2016-17 10. Your Appellant prays before-Your Honour that the order passed

Tmf Holding Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -1, Mumbai

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bletmf Holdings Ltd., V. Pr.Cit – 1 {Formerly Known As Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,} 3Rd Floor, Room No. 330 10Th Floor, 106 A & B Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Maker Chamber-Iii Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Aacct4644A (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Nikhil Tiwari Assessee By : Department By : Shri S.N. Kabra

liable to be held as erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue thereby warranting revision u/s 263.” 8. Aggrieved assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds in its appeal: - “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned

Anand Vithal, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-27, Navi Mumbai

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1139/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Anand Vithal बनधम/ Pcit-27 Room No.401, 4Th Floor, 215, F Wing Orchid Vs. Apartment, Behind Jain Tower No.6, Vashi Temple Road, Govandi East, Railway Station Mumbai-400088. Commercial Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai- 400703. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adjpv4940Q (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. Assessee By: Shri Ajay Singh Revenue By: Shri O.P. Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 15.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-27, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010-11 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-27 Has Invoked The Revisional Power U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - 2. “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Hon'Ble Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax — 27 (Hereinafter Referred As Pcit) Has Erred In Invoking Provisions Of Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By Issuing The Notice In Spite Of The Fact That Scrutiny Assessment U/S 144 R.W S. 147 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Has Been Completed By The Income Tax Officer Ward 27 (1) (1), Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred As Income Tax Officer) After Duly Examining & Applying Mind On Facts While Framing The Assessment Order U/E 144 R.Ws. 147 Of Income Tax

u/s 263 of the Act. Accordingly, notice u/s 263 was given and after the reply of the assessee, the PCIT has invoked the revision u/s 263 of the Act. 5. We have heard the argument advanced by the Ld. Representative of the parties and perused the record. We find that

M/S. Long Life Realtors LLP, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -17, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

itself. Hence the falsity of the documents filed which were relied upon by the ld. AO itself makes his order erroneous warranting revision u/s 263 of the Act. 9. At the outset, we find from the narration of the aforesaid facts and sequence of events, the ld AO had indeed ... assessment is framed after conducting enquiries as detailed supra, then the order passed by the ld AO cannot be subject matter of revision u/s 263 of the Act. The law is now very well settled that the revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act could be invoked

Galaxy Infraprojects & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT- 14, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Promod Kumar () & Ms. Suchitra Kamble () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Galaxy Infraprojects& Developers Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit-14, Unit 69/2948, Ratnadeep Co-Op Housing Room No. 415, 4Th Floor, Society Ltd., Gandhi Nagar, Bandra (E), Vs. Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaccg 7477 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Prateekjha, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Harendra Narayan Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/04/2022

revision is on the identical issue in the proceedings u/s 263 itself. But the Pr. CIT has taken second opinion and therefore, the revision u/s 263 is not proper and just. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of CIT vs. Nirav Modi 71 Taxman 272. The Ld. AR relied

Icici Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT -2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result we hold that the learned principal

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Icici Bank Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax-2(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 5 Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (East), Room No.552, Mumbai-400 051 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H Appellant By : Ms Arati Vissanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2022

have been covered in order passed u/s 143 (3) of the act but are not part of reopened proceedings, cannot be subject to revision u/s 263 of the income tax act by this order. This issue has already been decided in favour of the assessee in assessee’s own case ... rectified by an order u/s 154 ICICI Bank Ltd.; AY 11-12 of the act and cannot be a subject matter of revision u/s 263 of the act. 029. With respect to the above two adjustment both are relating to deduction u/s 36 (1) (viii

Madanmohanlal G. Arora, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT-17, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhmadanmohanlal G. Arora Vs. Pcit, 28-1003, Seawoods Room No.120, 1St Floor, Estates (Nri Complex) Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Building No. 28, Sector C-43, G Block, Bandra 54,56 & 58 Nerul, Kurla Complex, Bandra Navi Mumbai – 400 706 (E), Mumbai – 400 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabpa1302Q Appellant .. Respondent

case of C.I.T. v/s Simit P Sheth passed a speaking order u/s 144 read with Section 147 and therefore no order revision u/s 263 cannot be done. (4) The learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-17 failed to consider the factual and legal submission made against notice u/s 263 ... correctly done by the learned Assessing Officer and therefore The learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-17 had no jurisdiction of revision u/s 263 in the issue. (5) The assessee claims to leave to add, alter, amend any of the grounds of appeal. 2. The fact in brief