Subscribe to the Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal Subscribe Now!

January 2026

Revision u/s. 264 — Revision of intimation issued u/s. 143(1) accepting the returned income — Revision application filed pursuant to decision of Jurisdictional Tribunal in S. K. Ventures — — Rejection of application by CIT — Decision of Jurisdictional Tribunal not acceptable to the Department — High Court held — CIT bound to follow Jurisdictional Tribunal — Merely because order is challenged in appeal before the High Court cannot be the ground to not follow.

By Keshav Bhujle | Ritu Punjabi, Advocates
Reading Time 5 mins

55. Dipti Enterprises vs. ADIT

2025 (11) TMI 1856 (Bom.)

A. Y. 2020-21: Date of order 17/11/2025

Ss. 264 of ITA 1961

Revision u/s. 264 — Revision of intimation issued u/s. 143(1) accepting the returned income — Revision application filed pursuant to decision of Jurisdictional Tribunal in S. K. Ventures — — Rejection of application by CIT — Decision of Jurisdictional Tribunal not acceptable to the Department — High Court held — CIT bound to follow Jurisdictional Tribunal — Merely because order is challenged in appeal before the High Court cannot be the ground to not follow.

The assessee firm was engaged in the business of real estate development. The assessee filed its return of income for the A. Y. 2020-21 after claiming deduction u/s. 80-IB(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which, the assessee was claiming since A. Y. 2010-11. At the time of filing its return of income, the utility automatically calculated the tax liability u/s. 115JC of the Act and deemed total income of the assessee at ₹2,17,85,501. Since the tax payable as per the normal provisions was lower than the tax payable on the deemed total income determined in accordance with the AMT provisions, the t

Read More
Download PDF

You May Also Like

Offences and prosecution — Compounding of offences — Delay — Compounding application was rejected solely on the ground of delay of 36 months from date of filing complaint — Held, limitation period stipulated in CBDT guidelines — Guidelines treated as binding statutes without exercising discretion — Where Act provided no limitation period, rigid time-line through guidelines is impermissible — Held, mechanical rejection of application without considering facts and circumstances is improper — Order set aside and matter remanded for reconsideration exercising proper discretion.

Search and seizure — Assessment of any other person — Satisfaction note — Time of recording satisfaction note — Permissible stages — If not recorded immediately after completion of searched person’s assessment —Proceedings are invalid — Delay of 22 months in recording satisfaction note — Contrary to Circular No. 24/2015 — Notice issued u/s. 153C quashed and set-aside.