CIT v. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steell (P) ltd.

263 ITR 255Supreme Court of India2003#801 most cited

What is CIT v. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steell (P) ltd. authority for?

A subsequent change of law is not a valid ground for exercising the Commissioner's suo motu revisionary power under Section 263. If the Assessing Officer's view is plausible, it cannot be termed erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.

128

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steell (P) Ltd. · 263 ITR 255 · Section 263 · suo motu revision · subsequent change of law · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · plausible view by AO · Commissioner revision power · Income Tax Act · Supreme Court 2003

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57(iv)Section 148Section 151Section 10(37)Section 147

Issues it is cited on

section 145b(1)section 145a(b)section 145bsection 45(5)section 57(iv)section 141section 282a(1)section 56(2)(viii)section 10(37)section 194laenhanced compensationsanction under section 151

Judgments citing CIT v. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steell (P) ltd.

East Point Education Society, Delhi vs. ADIT (E), Delhi

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

ITA 2347/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13 East Point Education Society, Vs Adit (E), F-26, Vasundhara Enclave, Trust Circle-Ii, Delhi. Delhi. Pan: Aaate2296E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Arvind Kumar Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.09.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20Th March, 2017 Of The Cit(E) Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Society Registered U/S 12A Of The It Act, Vide Registration Dated 10.09.1985 & Also Registration U/S 80G(5)(Vi) Of The It Act, Vide Order Dated 23.11.2009, For Assessment Year 2010-11 To 2012-13. The Assessee Society Is Running A School Named Starex International, Formerly Known As East Point School, At Vasundhara Enclave, Delhi. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 27Th September, 2012 Declaring ‘Nil’ Income Along With Audit Report U/S 12A(B) In Form No.10B & Also Balance Sheet, Income & Expenditure Account With Relevant Schedules. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) On 12.11.2014

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 80G(5)(vi)

…rat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers reported in 259 ITR 502; and the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. vs. CIT, 243 ITR 83 and in the case of CIT vs. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel Pvt. Ltd., 263 ITR 255, he submitted that when an issue has already been discussed by the Assessing Officer and has taken a possible view, the CIT cannot invoke jurisdiction u/s 263 of the IT Act merely because he does not agree with the view taken by the Assessing Officer. He accordingly submitted that the action of the CIT(E) assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the IT…

Lupin Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT- Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3097/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora &For Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma, DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 8

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “A” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर ससिंह, न्याययक सदस्य एविं श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सुं./ ITA No. 3097/Mum/2019 (यनर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) Lupin Limited The Commissioner of 3rd Floor, Kalpataru Inspire, Income Tax, LTU, 29th Off Western Express Highway, Vs. Floor, World Trade Santacruz (East), Centre-1, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 055 Mumbai (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) .. स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./PAN No. AAACL1069K अ…

Philips India Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-IV, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1142/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Mar 2019AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited..........……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant Earlier Known As Philips Electronics India Limited 7 No. Justice Chandra Madhab Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv, Kolkata…….............…....................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Shri Navneet Misra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 27Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

…and that both the jurisdictional conditions have to be satisfied for invoking this section. For this proposition he relied on the following case-law:-  Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [(243 ITR 83) (SC)]  CIT vs. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel Pvt. Ltd. [(263 ITR 255)(SC)] 8 I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited He submitted that when two view are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one view, the provisions of Section 263 of the Act, would not be attracted and for this proposition, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Max India…

M/S Ansys Software Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 673/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Biswarajan Sasmal, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 92Section 92C

…o him, when the AO passed the order, there was an order in favour of revenue by the Tribunal and therefore he did not make any addition. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel P. Ltd., 263 ITR 255 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that when assessment order is passed on a view of the jurisdictional High Court and when that decision of the High Court is not in appeal to Supreme Court, the CIT cannot revise an order u/s. 263, even if High Court’s decision is later on reversed by the Supreme Court. Reference was also made to the decisi…

Joonktollee Tea & Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1225/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm ] I.T.A No. 1225/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Joonktollee Tea & Industries Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-4(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaacj 6577 G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B.K. Chatorvedi, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…be erroneous and hence the proposed exercise of the power of revision u/s 263 of the Act was illegal and without jurisdiction. He also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel (P) Ltd. reported in 263 ITR 255 that, when an order is passed on the view based on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court and such High Court decision is not under appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no jurisdiction lies with the Commissioner to revise the assessment order u/s 263 of the Act. He also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the cas…

The Additional CIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Buhari Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3196/CHNY/2016[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Oct 2017AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Smt. Veni S. Raj, JCITFor Respondent: Shri N.C. Prabhakar, Advocate
Section 115JSection 115VSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…same in accordance with law. In this regard I rely on the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Seshashayee paper Boards 217 ITR 258 which has been approved by the Supreme - 15 - Court in the case of CIT v. G.M.Mittal Stainless Steel P. Ltd 263 ITR 255." 8. To adjudicate the issue under consideration it is considered useful to extract some of the relevant provisions of the Act as under:- 115VA. Computation of profits and gains from the business of operating qualifying ships.--Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in sections 28 to 43C, in the case of a company, the income from the…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Buhari Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3195/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Smt. Veni S. Raj, JCITFor Respondent: Shri N.C. Prabhakar, Advocate
Section 115JSection 115VSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…same in accordance with law. In this regard I rely on the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Seshashayee paper Boards 217 ITR 258 which has been approved by the Supreme - 15 - Court in the case of CIT v. G.M.Mittal Stainless Steel P. Ltd 263 ITR 255." 8. To adjudicate the issue under consideration it is considered useful to extract some of the relevant provisions of the Act as under:- 115VA. Computation of profits and gains from the business of operating qualifying ships.--Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in sections 28 to 43C, in the case of a company, the income from the…

Mc Nally Bharat Engineering Company Limited, Kolkata vs. C.I.T Kol - 1, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 840/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 840/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Mc.Nally Bharat Engineering -Vs.- C.I.T., Circle-1, Company Limited, Kolkata Kolkata. [Pan : Aabcm 9443 R] (Respondent) (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Soumen Adak, FCA
Section 142(1)Section 263

…O in the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements in support of his contentions referred to above :- i)Malabar Industrial Co.Ltd vs CIT243 ITR 83(SC) ii)CIT vs G.M.Mittal Stainless Steel Pvt. Ltd. 263 ITR 255(SC) iii)CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108(Bom) 4 5 McNally Bharat Engineering Company Limited A.Yr.2008-09 9. Apart from the above the assessee also submitted that even on merits the action of the AO in allowing deduction on account of loss on account of foreign exchange fluctuation was correct. 10. The CIT however, was not convinced with t…

Poonam Chambers B Wing Commerical Premises Coperative Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-society in ITA N0

ITA 2470/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2470/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Poonam Chambers ‘B’ Wing Income Tax Officer – बनाम/ Commercial Premises Co-Op. 18(1)(2), Mumbai. V. Society Ltd., Plot No. G, Shiv Sagar Estate, Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400018. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaaap1685M .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian
Section 143(3)

…of Hon’ble Bombay High Court and it was wrong on the part of the AO to contend that the SLP is pending before ITA 2470/Mum/2013 7 Hon’ble Supreme Court . The assessee-society relied upon decision of CIT v. G.M.Mittal Stainless Steel Private Limited (2003) 263 ITR 255(SC) . It was also submitted that the notification of 1989 is applicable only to the housing societies and not to other societies. The assessee-society has not engaged into any profit making activity, the amount received from the members is covered under the concept of principle of mutuality. It was submitted that the amount contributed by the mem…

M/S. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6786/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Ranjan, Adv. Sh. VartikFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Mohan Govil, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…s of Revenue. For the same proposition, reliance is placed on the leading Supreme Court decision in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. v. CIT 243 ITR 83 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT v. G. M. Mittal Stainless Steel P. Ltd. 263 ITR 255. Reliance is also placed on the Allahabad High Court judgement in the case of CIT v. Mahendrakumar Bansal 297 ITR 99 wherein it has been held that merely because the ITO had not written a lengthy order, it would not establish without bringing on record specific instances that the assessment ITA NOS. 6785&6786/DEL/2015 (AYRS. 2010-11 & 2011-12) K…

M/S. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6785/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Ranjan, Adv. Sh. VartikFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Mohan Govil, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…s of Revenue. For the same proposition, reliance is placed on the leading Supreme Court decision in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. v. CIT 243 ITR 83 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT v. G. M. Mittal Stainless Steel P. Ltd. 263 ITR 255. Reliance is also placed on the Allahabad High Court judgement in the case of CIT v. Mahendrakumar Bansal 297 ITR 99 wherein it has been held that merely because the ITO had not written a lengthy order, it would not establish without bringing on record specific instances that the assessment ITA NOS. 6785&6786/DEL/2015 (AYRS. 2010-11 & 2011-12) K…

M/S Fazal Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. CIT, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2837/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nandita Kanchan, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36

…of the assessee. For the proposition that the power of the commissioner U/S 263 have to be exercised on the basis of the material available to him when he exercises the power, Reliance in this regard is placed on: CIT Vs G.M Mittal Stainless Steel Pvt Ltd 263 ITR 255 ( SC) Further, as such the impugned order cannot be termed erroneous since one of the possible views has been adopted and the matter has become final. Reliance in this regard is placed on Bagaria Vegetable Products Ltd Vs JCIT 303 ITR (AT) 278 (Pun e) Ahalya Trading Pvt Ltd Vs CIT 22 SOT 68( Mumbai) CIT Vs Munjal Castings 303 ITR 23 ( P&H) CIT…

Sattva Cfs & Logistics P. Ltd., Chennai vs. Principal CIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 701/CHNY/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jan 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.701/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S Sattva Cfs & Logistics Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Of No.153, High Gate Level 4, V. Income Tax, Chennai-Vi, Santhome High Road, R.A.Puram, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 028. Pan : Aajcs 5251 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh.R. Rajagopalakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Jayaram Raipura, CIT
Section 263Section 80

…nt has already filed an SLP before the Apex Court, therefore, the order of the Assessing Officer can be revised. The Principal Commissioner, in fact, placed his reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in CIT v. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel P. Ltd. (2003) 263 ITR 255. 5. We have carefully gone through the judgment of the Apex Court in G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel P. Ltd. (supra). The Apex Court never said that the Commissioner can proceed against the judgment of the High Court. In fact, the Apex Court observed as follows at page 258 of ITR as follows:- “………The fact that this court had subsequently reversed…

A.V. Industries, Mumbai vs. ACIT 24(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3469/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. A.V. Industries, Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 201, Bhagtani Krishna, Tax -24(3), “A” Wing, Mumbai Vs. Dattaray Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaffa 1100L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri K. Shivaram, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.11.2015 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K. Shivaram, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

…rder is erroneous and the Commissioner further must also satisfy the second limb of the provision that the order is also prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “CIT vs. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel (P) Ltd.” (2003) 263 ITR 255 has observed that the satisfaction by the Commissioner must be one objectively justifiable and based on material either legal or factual when available, it cannot be mere ipse dixit of the Commissioner. Now coming to the decision of the Apex court in the case of “Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT” (2000) 109 Taxman 66 (SC) which has been relied…

CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd

The appeal is disposed of, with no order as to costs

ITA/1691/2010HC Delhi10 Sept 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80H

…the foreign party was not examined by the Assessing Officer. Reliance was placed upon Gee Vee Enterprises vs. CIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del.); Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC); CIT vs. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel (P.) Ltd. (2003) 263 ITR 255 (SC) and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ashok Logani (2012) 347 ITR 22 (Del.) and that two decisions of the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del.) and ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del.), in fact, support the case of the Revenue. Our attention was also drawn to the decisions in CIT…

CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd

The appeal is disposed of, with no order as to costs

ITA - 1691 / 2010HC Delhi10 Sept 2013
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80H

…the foreign party was not examined by the Assessing Officer. Reliance was placed upon Gee Vee Enterprises vs. CIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del.); Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC); CIT vs. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel (P.) Ltd. (2003) 263 ITR 255 (SC) and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ashok Logani (2012) 347 ITR 22 (Del.) and that two decisions of the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del.) and ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del.), in fact, support the case of the Revenue. Our attention was also drawn to the decisions in CIT…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi V vs. New Delhi Television Ltd

The appeal is disposed of, with no order as to costs

ITA - 1404 / 2009HC Delhi10 Sept 2013
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80H

…the foreign party was not examined by the Assessing Officer. Reliance was placed upon Gee Vee Enterprises vs. CIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del.); Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC); CIT vs. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel (P.) Ltd. (2003) 263 ITR 255 (SC) and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ashok Logani (2012) 347 ITR 22 (Del.) and that two decisions of the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del.) and ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del.), in fact, support the case of the Revenue. Our attention was also drawn to the decisions in CIT…

CIT vs. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd

ITA/250/2012HC Delhi19 Jul 2013

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 203Section 263Section 80Section 80I

…ted the orders of the CIT passed under Section 263 of the Act for both the years. It may be added that the Tribunal placed reliance on the following judgments of the Supreme Court:- (1) Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. V/s. CIT (2000) 243ITR 83, G.M. Mittal 263 ITR 255 (2) CIT Vs Max India Ltd. (SC) (2007) 295 ITR 282 13. The Tribunal however, observed that since no submissions were made by the assessee as regard the disallowance under Section 14A, the orders of the CIT on that issue had to be affirmed. 14. We are not persuaded to take a view different from the view taken by the Tribunal. A clear findi…

CIT vs. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd

ITA/210/2012HC Delhi19 Jul 2013

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 203Section 263Section 80Section 80I

…ted the orders of the CIT passed under Section 263 of the Act for both the years. It may be added that the Tribunal placed reliance on the following judgments of the Supreme Court:- (1) Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. V/s. CIT (2000) 243ITR 83, G.M. Mittal 263 ITR 255 (2) CIT Vs Max India Ltd. (SC) (2007) 295 ITR 282 13. The Tribunal however, observed that since no submissions were made by the assessee as regard the disallowance under Section 14A, the orders of the CIT on that issue had to be affirmed. 14. We are not persuaded to take a view different from the view taken by the Tribunal. A clear findi…

CIT vs. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd

ITA/215/2012HC Delhi19 Jul 2013

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 203Section 263Section 80Section 80I

…ted the orders of the CIT passed under Section 263 of the Act for both the years. It may be added that the Tribunal placed reliance on the following judgments of the Supreme Court:- (1) Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. V/s. CIT (2000) 243ITR 83, G.M. Mittal 263 ITR 255 (2) CIT Vs Max India Ltd. (SC) (2007) 295 ITR 282 13. The Tribunal however, observed that since no submissions were made by the assessee as regard the disallowance under Section 14A, the orders of the CIT on that issue had to be affirmed. 14. We are not persuaded to take a view different from the view taken by the Tribunal. A clear findi…