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.

CIT vs. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd

ITA/214/2012HC 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
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 - 214 / 2012HC Delhi19 Jul 2013
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
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 - 250 / 2012HC Delhi19 Jul 2013
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. Vodafone Essar South Ltd

ITA/119/2012HC Delhi20 Nov 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35Section 37

…e Tax (2000) 243 ITR 83(SC), where it was held that where two views are possible, the power under Section 263 cannot be exercised. To the same effect, the ITA 119/2012 Page 4 judgment reported as CIT Vs. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel (P) Ltd. (2003) 263 ITR 255 was relied upon. 6. This Court has considered the submissions as well as the record. The assessee during the course of the original assessment proceedings had been issued a questionnaire by the Assessing Officer which specifically contained enquiries as to the circle wise details of the regulatory fee paid, particulars with regard to bank…

CIT vs. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd

In the result all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed with no order as to costs

ITA - 437 / 2011HC Delhi24 Sept 2012
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 263Section 80I

…acated 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 fi…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd

ITA/1376/2009HC Delhi05 Jul 2010

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

For Appellant: Mr N.P. Sahni and Ms Prem Lata Bansal with Mr P.C. YadavFor Respondent: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha and Mr Sriram Krishna
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80HSection 80I

…ism under Section 263 of the said Act. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT v. Max India Ltd: (2007) 295 ITR 282(SC) as also to the decision in the case of CIT v. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel Pvt. Ltd: 263 ITR 255. The Tribunal held that on the question of allowability of deduction under ITA Nos.1376/09&1382/09 Page No.6 of 20 Section 80HHC on the profits without reducing it by the amount of deduction allowed under Section 80IB, there was a difference of opinion amongst the various benches of the Tribunal and the same continued till the decis…