Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.21 seconds)
Dr.Balachandran Nair M, Trivandrum vs The Acit,Circle-1(1), Trivandrum on 27 September, 2019 cites

Haryana State Co-Op. Supply And ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 31 July, 2003

Though the Commissioner had noted in his order u/s 263, the objections raised on the jurisdiction under section 263 of a matter already considered and decided in appeal, it was submitted that the CIT failed to give a clear finding on this point and proceeded to set aside the order of the Assessing officer u/s. 263. It was submitted that as per Explanation (1) clause (c) of section 263, where any order passed by the AO had been the subject matter of any appeal, the power of the Commissioner would extend to such matters as has not been considered and decided in such appeal. The matter of taxability of interest on FCNR(B) and NRE SB account with State Bank of India , NRE Branch, was already subject matter of an appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) which was considered and decided by him and hence, the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, does not extend to this matter as per the above explanation. 4.1 The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Supreme court in the case of CIT vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd. (293 ITR 1) (SC) and also the decision of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Haryana State Co-operative Supply And Marketing Federation Ltd. vs. Deputy CIT (274 ITR (AT) 167). It was submitted that 7 I.T.A. Nos. 147-150/Coch/2019 it is now well settled that the powers of the Commissioner under s.263 extends only to such matters as had not been considered and decided in the order passed in appeal. It was submitted that the subject matter of the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) consisted of taxing the interest on FCNR-B and NRE SB accounts with NRI branch of SBI, Trivandrum, in the hands of the assessee and the Commissioner (Appeals) had considered and given his findings in his appellate order. Hence, it was contended that this particular matter has already been merged in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and in view of explanation (c) to s.263(1), the Commissioner would not have any jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of s.263 to revise the order on this matter.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 20 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai vs M/S. Alagendran Finance Ltd on 27 July, 2007

Though the Commissioner had noted in his order u/s 263, the objections raised on the jurisdiction under section 263 of a matter already considered and decided in appeal, it was submitted that the CIT failed to give a clear finding on this point and proceeded to set aside the order of the Assessing officer u/s. 263. It was submitted that as per Explanation (1) clause (c) of section 263, where any order passed by the AO had been the subject matter of any appeal, the power of the Commissioner would extend to such matters as has not been considered and decided in such appeal. The matter of taxability of interest on FCNR(B) and NRE SB account with State Bank of India , NRE Branch, was already subject matter of an appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) which was considered and decided by him and hence, the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, does not extend to this matter as per the above explanation. 4.1 The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Supreme court in the case of CIT vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd. (293 ITR 1) (SC) and also the decision of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Haryana State Co-operative Supply And Marketing Federation Ltd. vs. Deputy CIT (274 ITR (AT) 167). It was submitted that 7 I.T.A. Nos. 147-150/Coch/2019 it is now well settled that the powers of the Commissioner under s.263 extends only to such matters as had not been considered and decided in the order passed in appeal. It was submitted that the subject matter of the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) consisted of taxing the interest on FCNR-B and NRE SB accounts with NRI branch of SBI, Trivandrum, in the hands of the assessee and the Commissioner (Appeals) had considered and given his findings in his appellate order. Hence, it was contended that this particular matter has already been merged in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and in view of explanation (c) to s.263(1), the Commissioner would not have any jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of s.263 to revise the order on this matter.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 141 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1