CIT v. Max India Ltd.

295 ITR 282Supreme Court of India2007#37 most cited

What is CIT v. Max India Ltd. authority for?

Under Section 263, an assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue merely because the Principal Commissioner disagrees with the Assessing Officer's (AO) view, particularly if the AO has adopted one of two permissible views in law, unless that view is completely unsustainable. If due inquiries were made, the AO's order does not become erroneous solely because the fact of inquiries was not recorded.

1,162

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Max India Ltd. · Section 263 Income Tax Act · revision under Section 263 · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · two views possible · Assessing Officer view · Malabar Industrial · inadequate enquiry · non-application of mind · principal commissioner of income-tax

Also reported as

166 Taxmann 188213 CTR 266166 Taxmann.com 188

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 1961

Issues it is cited on

malabar industrialinadequate enquiryrevision u/s 263assessment order erroneouslack of enquiryrevision under section 263section 263(1)erroneous and prejudicialsection 263section 26principal commissioner of income-taxnon-application of mind

Judgments citing CIT v. Max India Ltd.

Guardian India Operations Private Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT 1, Chennai

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

ITA 842/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Ashik ShahFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, IRS,CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…t is made before the return is filed.............’’ The Hon'ble jurisdictional Madras High Court in case of CIT v. Industrial Security & Intelligence India Pvt. Ltd. [TCA No. 585 of 2015, dated 24-7-2015). Further, in the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC), the Supreme Court observed that if the view taken by the Ld. AO, at the time of making the order of assessment was a possible one, there can be no doubt that the order cannot be prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue’’. 7. The ld.PCIT, after considering the submissions of assessee and keeping in mind the judgment of the Hon’ble Suprem…

M/S. Balaji Exports, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-27, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 226/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan: A.Y : 2015-16 M/S. Balaji Exports, Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Gala No. E-887/888, . Tax-27, Room No. 301, Apmc Market Vegetable, 3Rd Floor, Vashi Railway Vashi,Navi Mumbai. Station Building, Pan : Aaifb2566Q Tower No. 6, (Appellant) Navi Mumbai (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika Agarwal, a/wFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : A.Y : 2015-16 M/s. Balaji Exports, Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Gala No. E-887/888, . Tax-27, Room No. 301, APMC Market Vegetable, 3rd Floor, Vashi Railway Vashi,Navi Mumbai. Station Building, PAN : AAIFB2566Q Tower No. 6, (Appellant) Navi Mumbai (Respondent) Appellant by : Ms. Ritika Agarwal, a/w. Shri Roshan Ochani, Respondent by : Shri Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 03/07/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 25/07/2024 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, A.M…

Sangola Taluka Prathamik Shikshak Co Op Credit Soceity Limited Sangola, Sangola vs. Pr. CIT -4 Pune, Pune

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

ITA 803/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.803/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sangola Taluka Prathamik Shikshak Vs. Pr.Cit-4, Coop. Credit Society Limited, Sangola Pune Sangola, Tal Sangola, Dist. Solapur – 413 307 Maharashtra Pan : Aahas6075P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…e above two conditions are required to be satisfied cumulatively. References in this regard can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC) and in the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282 (SC). The error in the assessment order should be one that it is not debatable or plausible view. In a case where the Assessing Officer examined the claim took one of the plausible views, the assessment order cannot be termed as an “erroneous”. 7. In the present case, we find that admittedly the interest income was earned from the cooperative ba…

Zaveri Exports Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-3(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 452/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2018-19 Zaveri Exports Private Limited, Vs. The Acit, Central Circle – 3(4), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaacz1286A. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate. Revenue By: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri H. Srinivasulu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 292CSection 38Section 65BSection 68

…contrary view then the occasion of invoking section 269SS/ST is not permissible. For the above said purposes, ld. AR has relied upon the following judgments: A) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT - (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC). B) CIT Vs. Max India Limited (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) C) Ultratech Cements Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan - (2020) 117 taxmann.com 807 (SC). 7 D) CIT Vs. Smt. Neena Krishna Menon – (2021) 123 taxmann.com 205. E) CIT Vs. GM Mittal Stainless Steel (P) Ltd. – (2003) 263 ITR 255 (SC) F) CIT Vs. Canara Bank – (2021) 123 taxmann.com 207 G) Narayan Tatu Rane Vs. ITO – (2016) 70 taxmann.com 227. 8. Per c…

Anant Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. PCIT, Pune-4, Pune

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

ITA 636/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.636/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Anant Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Vs. Pr.Cit-4, Maryadit, Pune Ist Floor, Panbajar Building, Chattrapati Shivaji Maharaj Market Yard, Bibwewadi, Pune – 411 037 Maharashtra Pan : Aaaaa4259L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 263Section 5

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.636/PUN/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Anant Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Vs. Pr.CIT-4, Maryadit, Pune Ist Floor, Panbajar Building, Chattrapati Shivaji Maharaj Market Yard, Bibwewadi, Pune – 411 037 Maharashtra PAN : AAAAA4259L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue by : Shri Keyur Patel Date of hearing : 09.07.2024 Date of pronouncement : 10.07.2024 आदेश आदेश / ORDER आदेश आदेश PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is a…

SHI vs. Hakti Sahkari Patsanstha Limited, Sataravs.PCIT Pune-3, Pune

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

ITA 545/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.545/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.545/PUN/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shivshakti Sahkari Patsanstha Limited, Vs. Pr.CIT-3, At Post Shivthar B.O., Shivthar, Pune Satara - 415 011, Maharashtra PAN : AAZAS5669K Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue by : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date of hearing : 01.07.2024 Date of pronouncement : 01.07.2024 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the…

Greaves Saommha Kamgar Sahakari Path Pedhi Maryadit, Pune vs. Pr. CIT-3, Pune

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

ITA 345/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.345/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Bafna &For Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR
Section 5

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.345/PUN/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Greaves Samooha Kamgar Vs. Pr.CIT-3, Sahakari Path Pedhi Maryadit, Pune Old Mumbai Pune Road, Chinchwad, Pune 411 019 Maharashtra PAN : AAATG4293P Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Piyush Bafna & Shri Akash Parekh Revenue by : Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 26.06.2024 Date of pronouncement : 26.06.2024 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by t…

Sajjad Ali, Chittorgarh vs. DCIT(Intl)- Jaipur, Jaipur

ITA 459/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Ojha (CIT-DR)
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54

…ken by the A.O. is one of the possible views then learned CIT cannot assume jurisdiction. For this purpose reliance has been placed on the followings decisions: 1. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. PR. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) 2. PR. CIT VS MAX INDIA LTD.(2007)213 CTR 266(SC) It is further submitted that proceedings under s. 263 cannot be taken on the ground that the AO has not made sufficient enquiry. The learned PR. CIT can assume jurisdiction if there has been lack of enquiry. In the instant case, the enquiry has been made, though the enquiry may not be sufficient in the opinion of the learned PR. CIT. The rel…

M/S. Corporate Leisure & Property Development Pvt Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2(4), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 652/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Sri Shantilal G., A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263

…an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in " 3.10 The ld. A.R. further placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. MAX India Ltd. reported in 295 ITR 282 for the proposition that when two views are possible and the view adopted by the learned assessing officer is not accepted by the commissioner, the same cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the revenue. 3.11 The ld. A.R. submitted that the revision of an order under Section 263 of the Act cannot be based solely on the subjectiv…

Hatch Tact Innovations Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1261/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2016-17 Hatch Tact Innovations Private Vs Pr. Cit, Limited, Faridabad. C2/215, Jal Vayu Towers, Sector 56, Gurgaon (Haryana) – 122 002. Pan: Aadch5527R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K. Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr & Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.06.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : H : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 Hatch Tact Innovations Private Vs Pr. CIT, Limited, Faridabad. C2/215, Jal Vayu Towers, Sector 56, Gurgaon (Haryana) – 122 002. PAN: AADCH5527R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.K. Jain, CA Revenue by : Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR & Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 05.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 04.06.2024 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This is appeal preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 15.03.2021…

Vipul Kumar Modi, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur -I

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 310/JPR/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Ranka &For Respondent: Shri Anil Dhaka (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 263

…it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, unless the view taken by the AO is totally unsustainable in law. We draw strength from case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and also from the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). • Hon’ble ITAT Kolkata Bench in Mukesh Kumar Agarwalla v. PCIT (2023) 12 TMI 628 has held: Revision u/s 263 - CIT noticed that AO had not properly examined the issue of suspicious sale transaction in shares and exempt LTCG claimed by the assessee - whether the AO has carried out the required examination and verification of the 15 Vipul Kum…

Worley India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commission of Income Tax 2, Mumbai

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

ITA 554/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

…aken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law.” The principle which has been laid down in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) has been followed and explained in a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282.” 11. Further In the case of Nagesh Knitwears P Ltd (2012)(345 ITR 135), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has elucidated and explained the scope of the provisions of sec. 263 of the Act and the same has been extracted by the Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs. Goetze (India) Ltd (361 ITR 505) as under:- “Thus, in cases of wrong opinion or findi…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 1(3)(1), Income Tax Department vs. Zenith Industrial Rubber Products Private Limiteds, Free Press House, Nariman Poin

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 581/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Smit Sheth, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 260ASection 263

…ble view. Once it is held that the A.O is has adopted a possible view, the jurisdiction exercised by the Id. CIT(A) u/s 263, losses its legality. This view is supported by the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of CIT (Central)vs Max India Limited [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) and Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. (supra). 3 Zenith Industrial Rubber Products Pvt. Ltd., AY 2013-14 12. In the background of the above discussion and precedent, we quash the order passed by the Id. CIT(A) u/s. 263 of the Act. 13. In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed." 3.1 In the inter…

Gangaur Exports Private Limited, Jaipur vs. The PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result grounds raised by the assessee are allowed and order of Ld

ITA 362/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 135Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 5Section 80GSection 80I

…n'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 159 CTR (SC) 1: (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC). We also draw strength from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 213 CTR (SC) 266: (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) wherein it was held that: "The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue' in s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961, has to be read in conjunction with the expression 'erroneous' order passed by the AO. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the AO cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. For example,…

Sh. Baljit Singh, Ludhiana vs. Pr. CIT, Ludhiana -1, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 416/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Kaushal &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68Section 92C

…of the Pr. CIT passed under s.263 of the Act is set aside and cancelled and the order of the AO under s. 143(3) is restored. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed". (Emphasis supplied in bold and Italics) (ii) CIT v/s Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) It is held that: "The phrase "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" in S. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has to be read in conjunction with the expression "erroneous" order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of…

Mohammed Gyasuddin, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir.-30, Kolkata

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

ITA 571/KOL/2020[2012-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2024AY 2012-12

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 269SSection 271D

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'बी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री संजय गगग, न्याधयक सदस्य एवं श्री संजय अवस्थी, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before SRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 571/KOL/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mohammed Gyasuddin............................................................Appellant [PAN: AFVPG 2465 H] Vs. ACIT, Circle-30, Kolkata.......................................................Respondent Appearances: Assessee represented by: Miraj D. Shah, A/R. Department represented by: Abhijit Kundu, CIT…

Mohammed Gyasuddin, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir.-30, Kolkata

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

ITA 570/KOL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 269SSection 271D

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'बी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री संजय गगग, न्याधयक सदस्य एवं श्री संजय अवस्थी, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before SRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 570/KOL/2020 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mohammed Gyasuddin............................................................Appellant [PAN: AFVPG 2465 H] Vs. ACIT, Circle-30, Kolkata.......................................................Respondent Appearances: Assessee represented by: Miraj D. Shah, A/R. Department represented by: Abhijit Kundu, CIT…

M/S Olympus Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Cir-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1088/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 May 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1088/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Olympus Suppliers Pvt Ltd.……..…………............…...……………....Appellant 15/B, Clive Row, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aabco0624Q] Vs. Pcit, Circle-2, Kolkata……….…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 13, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 23.03.2015 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. This Is A Second Round Of Litigation Before Us. Earlier, The Assessee Had Filed Appeal Before This Tribunal Against The Impugned Order Of The Pr. Cit Passed U/S 263 Of The Act, However, The Said Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed Along With Three Other Cases By A Common Order Dated 05.08.2016. Being Aggrieved By The Said Order, The Assessee Preferred Further Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Calcutta High Court Bearing No. Itat/328/2017 Ia No.Ga/2/2017 (Old No.Ga/3184/2017). It Was Pleaded Before The Hon’Ble Calcutta High Court That The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed Along With Other Appeals, However, The Specific

Section 143(1)Section 151Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘बी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "गर"श अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य के सम" Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Shri Girish Agrawal, Accountant Member I.T.A. No.1088/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/s Olympus Suppliers Pvt Ltd.……..…………............…...……………....Appellant 15/B, Clive Row, Kolkata-1. [PAN: AABCO0624Q] vs. PCIT, Circle-2, Kolkata……….…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances by: Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT-D…

Urmila Uttam Jhavar, Mumbai vs. Faceless, Delhi

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

ITA 208/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal: A.Y : 2018-19 Urmila Uttam Jhavar Vs Principal Commissioner Of 2 Homestead, . Income Tax Officer, Mumbai. 16, Dattatraya Road, Santa Cruz, (Respondent) Mumbai 400 054. Pan : Aaapj8879N (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

…aken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law.” The principle which has been laid down in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) has been followed and explained in a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282.” 4. The first issue considered by Ld PCIT is that the AO has allowed deduction u/s 54F of the Act without noticing the fact that the assessee has already owned four flats. It is pertinent to note that the deduction u/s 54F of the Act could not be allowed if the assessee had already owned two residential houses, other than the new residential hou…

Ramotar Choudhari HUF, Kolkata vs. PCIT 5 Kolkata, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1336/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1336/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ramotar Choudhari Huf.……..…………............…...……………....Appellant 7Th Floor, R.N 25 Fortuna Tower, 23A N.S. Road, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aanhr9093K] Vs. Pcit-5, Kolkata………….…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Pransukha, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 06, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 09, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 18.10.2023 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Pr. Cit In Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act & Thereby Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame The Assessment Afresh. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,55,970/- On 21.01.2014. Thereafter, An Information Was Received By The Assessing Officer From Investigation Wing That The Assessee Has

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘बी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Accountant Member I.T.A. No.1336/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ramotar Choudhari HUF.……..…………............…...……………....Appellant 7th Floor, R.N 25 Fortuna Tower, 23A N.S. Road, Kolkata-1. [PAN: AANHR9093K] vs. PCIT-5, Kolkata………….…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances by: Shri S. K. Pransukha, FCA, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT-DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. D…