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 367,368 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.

Impact Foundation (India), Mumbai vs. The Comm of Income Tax (Exemp), Mumbai

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

ITA 931/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.931/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18) Impact Foundation (India) बिधम/ Cit (E), Mumbai F1, 1St Floor, Laxmi Room No. 601, 6Th Floor, Vs. Wooden Mills, Opp G5A, Mtnl Building, Pedder Shakti Mills Lane, Off, Dr. Road, Dr. Gopalrao E. Moses Road, Mahalaxmi Deshmukh Marg, (W), Mumbai-400011. Cumballa Hill, Mumbai- 400026. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaat1422J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Shri Purushottam Tripuri (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit (Exemptions), Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Dated 24.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee Is Challenging The Validity Of Invocation Of Jurisdiction By Ld Cit(E) U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripuri (Sr. AR)
Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

…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.” The principles laid down by the courts are that the Learned CIT cannot invoke his powers of revision under section 263 if the Assessing Officer has conducted enquiries and applied his mind and has taken a possible view of the matter. If there was enquiry and a possible view has been taken, it would not give occasion to the Commissioner to pass…

Pioneer Insurance & Reinsurance Brokers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax - 3, Mumbai and Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax – 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 935/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Aby T Varkey (Jm)

Section 131Section 133ASection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘C’ BENCH, MUMBAI. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Aby T Varkey (JM) I.T.A. No. 933/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 934/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2013-14) Vs. Prin. CIT-3 and M/s. Pioneer Investcorp Limited 1219, Maker Chamber V DCIT 3(2)(1), Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021. Room No.612, 6th Floor, Aayakar PAN AAACP2423R Bhavan, M K Road Mumbai-400 020. (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 935/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2012-13) Vs. Prin. CIT-3 and M/s. Pioneer Insurance & Reinsurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. DCIT 3(2)(1), 1219, Maker Chamber V Room No.612, 6th Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 0…

Pioneer Investcorp Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax - 3, Mumbai and Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax – 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 934/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Aby T Varkey (Jm)

Section 131Section 133ASection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘C’ BENCH, MUMBAI. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Aby T Varkey (JM) I.T.A. No. 933/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 934/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2013-14) Vs. Prin. CIT-3 and M/s. Pioneer Investcorp Limited 1219, Maker Chamber V DCIT 3(2)(1), Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021. Room No.612, 6th Floor, Aayakar PAN AAACP2423R Bhavan, M K Road Mumbai-400 020. (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 935/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2012-13) Vs. Prin. CIT-3 and M/s. Pioneer Insurance & Reinsurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. DCIT 3(2)(1), 1219, Maker Chamber V Room No.612, 6th Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 0…

Pioneer Investcorp Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax - 3, Mumbai and Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax – 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 933/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Aby T Varkey (Jm)

Section 131Section 133ASection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘C’ BENCH, MUMBAI. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Aby T Varkey (JM) I.T.A. No. 933/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 934/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2013-14) Vs. Prin. CIT-3 and M/s. Pioneer Investcorp Limited 1219, Maker Chamber V DCIT 3(2)(1), Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021. Room No.612, 6th Floor, Aayakar PAN AAACP2423R Bhavan, M K Road Mumbai-400 020. (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 935/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2012-13) Vs. Prin. CIT-3 and M/s. Pioneer Insurance & Reinsurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. DCIT 3(2)(1), 1219, Maker Chamber V Room No.612, 6th Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 0…

Prerak Goel, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -19, Mumbai

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

ITA 787/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2022AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)Section 263Section 53ASection 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.” The principles laid down by the courts are that the Learned CIT cannot invoke his powers of revision under section 263 if the Assessing Officer has conducted enquiries and applied his mind and has taken a possible view of the matter. If there was any enquiry and a possible view is taken, it would not give occasion to the Commissioner to pass or…

M/S. Croda India Company Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Pr. Comm of Income Tax, Mumbai-6

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1439/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 32Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35Section 43(6)

…ion jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act cannot be invoked by the ld. PCIT. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd vs CIT reported in 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT vs Max India Ltd reported in 295 ITR 282 (SC). 6.2. We deem it fit to address the actual meaning of the expression ‘actually allowed’ used in the entire provisions of section 43(6) of the Act which defines ‘Written Down Value’. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Doom Dooma India Ltd reported in 310 ITR 12 M/s. Croda India Company Pvt. Ltd. 392 (SC) had addres…

Dhnalaxmi Bank Limited, Trichur vs. The Pr CIT, Thrissur

Appeal is allowed

ITA 56/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Harikrishnanunny, CAFor Respondent: Smt. M. Rajasekhar, CIT(DR)
Section 10(33)Section 14Section 143Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263

…by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law." 14. 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. 15. Placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the considered view that the PCIT is not justified in setting aside the order of the AO for enhancing the disallowance u/s.14A. Further even on merits in our view there is no error prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. On these counts we quash the order of the PCIT pa…

Wonder Laminates Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-5, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 316/KOL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 316/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Wonder Laminates Pvt. Ltd. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-5, C/O. Subash Agrawal & Vs Kolkata Associates, Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213 2Nd Floor Kolkata – 700069 [Pan : Aaacw2197D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Biswanath Das, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/11/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16 /12/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 5, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 30/06/2020, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Though The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Appeal Is Time Barred, However, In View Of The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Miscellaneous Application No. 665 Of 2021 In Smw(C) No. 3 Of 2020, The Period Of Filing Appeal During The Covid-19 Pandemic Is To Be Excluded For The Purpose Of Counting The Limitation Period. In View Of This, The Appeal Is Treated As Filed Within The Limitation Period.

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT D/R
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…ercised without fulfilling the conditions envisaged in Section 263 of the Act. In defense of his arguments, the ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon a series of decisions as under:-  Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 243 ITR 83  CIT vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC)  J.L. Morrison 366 ITR 593 (Calcutta)  Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) 5. The ld. D/R relied on the order of the ld. Pr. CIT. 6. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The undisputed fact is that the issue was examined in the original assessment proceedings by calling for explanations from the a…

Skyline Millars Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr. Comm of Income Tax, Mumabi 6, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is fully allowed

ITA 776/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalskyline Millars Ltd. 24 Po Box No. 9208, Kurla Kirol Road, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086. Pan: Aaact2755J ...... Appellant Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-6, Room No. 501, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Dalpat Shah, Ca Respondent By : Sh. Rakesh Garg, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-6, Mumbai Dated 31.03.2022 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) For A.Y. 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Order U/Sec. 263 Of The Income Tax Act Is Bad-In-Law.

For Appellant: Sh. Dalpat Shah, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rakesh Garg, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…any Penalty. 1.3. The said Pr. C.I.T. also erred in not considering the fact that the order cannot be subject to Revision U/sec 263 when two views are possible on allowability of claim as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/S Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282. 1.4 The order U/Sec. 263 is bad in Law, invalid and void as the assessment order U/Sec. 143(3) was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that Assessee Company is in the business of development of property and manufacturing industry having income from business, capital gains and other so…

Diamines and Chemicals Limited, Baroda vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Baroda

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 219/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Dec 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, CIT/D.R. &
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80I

…s the assessee also relied upon various case laws namely Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers (2002) 290 ITR 689 (Guj.), CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). I.T.A No. 1472/Ahd/2015 & 219/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 5 Diamines & Chemicals Ltd. vs. DCIT 2.5. The Ld. PCIT considered the above submissions of the assessee and held that the explanations submitted by the assessee is not acceptable since New Plant & Machinery acquired and installed are only eligible for additional depreciation. In…

Diamines & Chemicals Ltd., Baroda vs. The Pr. CIT- 1, Baroda

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1472/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: PendingITAT Ahmedabad14 Dec 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, CIT/D.R. &
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80I

…s the assessee also relied upon various case laws namely Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers (2002) 290 ITR 689 (Guj.), CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). I.T.A No. 1472/Ahd/2015 & 219/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 5 Diamines & Chemicals Ltd. vs. DCIT 2.5. The Ld. PCIT considered the above submissions of the assessee and held that the explanations submitted by the assessee is not acceptable since New Plant & Machinery acquired and installed are only eligible for additional depreciation. In…

Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Prints Private Limited, Surat vs. Pr. CIT-2, Surat

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

ITA 58/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.58/Srt/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Prints Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Pcit-2, A-26, Central Park, Gidc, Pandesara Surat. S.O., Pandesara, Surat-394221. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aamcs4421L

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.58/SRT/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Siddhi Vinayak Knots & Prints Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The PCIT-2, A-26, Central Park, GIDC, Pandesara Surat. S.O., Pandesara, Surat-394221. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAMCS4421L Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Respondent by Shri Asish Pophare, CIT-DR 09/12/2022 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 19/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: By way of this appeal, the assessee a…

M/S. North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd., Shillong vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - Shillong, Shillong

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 45/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati12 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ITA No. 45/GAU/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 & Assessment Year:2014-2015 M/s. North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA-GUWAHATI ‘e-COURT’, KOLKATA [Virtual Court Hearing] Before Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ) & Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 45/GAU/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/s. North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited,………………………………………………… Appellant Brookland Compound, Lower New Colony, Shillong-793003 [PAN:AAACN9991J] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,....Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, M.G. Road, Shillong,…

M/S. North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd., Shillong vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - Shillong, Shillong

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 418/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati12 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ITA No. 45/GAU/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 & Assessment Year:2014-2015 M/s. North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA-GUWAHATI ‘e-COURT’, KOLKATA [Virtual Court Hearing] Before Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ) & Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 45/GAU/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/s. North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited,………………………………………………… Appellant Brookland Compound, Lower New Colony, Shillong-793003 [PAN:AAACN9991J] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,....Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, M.G. Road, Shillong,…

Red Monster Mobile Pvt Ltd., Mumbai-400021 vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Mumbai-400020

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1248/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blered Monster Mobile Private Limited V. Pr.Cit –3 213, Raheja Chambers Room No. 612, 6Th Floor Free Press Journal Marg Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aagcr9963G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

…t to be taxed as income, the burden lies upon the 21 Red Monster Mobile Private Limited department to prove that it is within the taxing provision." We also rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Limited reported in 295 ITR 282 wherein it was held as under : "When the CIT passed the impugned order under s. 263, two views were inherently possible on the word "profits" occurring in the proviso to s.80HHC(3) and therefore, subsequent amendment of s. 80HHC made in the ITA No.1361/Kol/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 S.K. Khemka Vs. Pr. CIT-15 Kol. Page 12 year 2005, though retrospective,…

Marathwada Auto Cluster, Aurangabad vs. (Exemption), Pune

ITA 771/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.771/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Marathwada Auto Cluster, P-174, M.I.D.C., Waluj, Aurangabad-36 Pan : Aagcm3333D . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune. . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri S. N. Puranik Revenue By : Shri Naveen Gupta सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 13/10/2022 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 13/10/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Pune [For Short “Cit(E)”] Dt. 31/03/2019 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Setting Aside The Order Of Assessment Order Dt. 29/12/2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Passed By Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-1, Aurangabad [For Short “Ao”].

For Appellant: Shri S. N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 25Section 263

…ITA No. 771/PUN/2019 AY: 2014-15 taken as an instance involving erroneous assessment prejudicial to interest of the revenue unless of course the Assessing Officer’s view is unsustainable in law. The very view stood reiterated in CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC), CIT v. Nahar Exports Ltd. (2007) 288 ITR 494 (P&H), CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) Grasim Industries vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR, 92 (Bom). We keeping in mind all this settle legal preposition, to revert back to the twin issues (supra) raised in the Ld. CIT(E)’s 263 order under challenge. 7. Admittedly, the case of the appell…

M/S. Karnataka Hitech Agro Enterprises, Gadag vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 717/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ramaraju N., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh K., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155Section 263Section 68

…by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law." 12. 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. 13. Placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the considered view that the PCIT is not justified in setting aside the order of the AO u/s. 263 of the Act. Accordingly the directions of the PCIT are quashed. 14. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this 8th day of Dece…

Eaton Technologies Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-1, Pune

ITA 902/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & G.D.Padmahshaliआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.590/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Dcit, Circle-1(2), Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.902/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Pr.Cit-1, Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 80I

…ficer, the exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 by the Commissioner cannot be upheld. We place reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC). In order to invoke the provisions of section 263 of the Act, the order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Where the Commissioner does not agree with the view of the Assessing Officer the same cannot be basis/justification for invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act. Further, the opinion of the Commi…

Eaton Technologies Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(2), Pune

ITA 590/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & G.D.Padmahshaliआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.590/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Dcit, Circle-1(2), Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.902/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Pr.Cit-1, Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 80I

…ficer, the exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 by the Commissioner cannot be upheld. We place reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC). In order to invoke the provisions of section 263 of the Act, the order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Where the Commissioner does not agree with the view of the Assessing Officer the same cannot be basis/justification for invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act. Further, the opinion of the Commi…

Sh.Ashok Kumar Gupta, Ludhiana vs. Pr.CIT-1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 35/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Nov 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri. Pankaj Bhalla, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

…he Act and therefore the order so passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT deserves to be set aside and in support, the reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Malabar Industrial Co. Vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 and CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282. 5. Per contra, the Ld. CIT DR relied on the order passed by the Ld. PCIT and our reference was drawn to the show cause notices issued by the Ld. PCIT and the contents thereof read as under: "3.1 Examination of the assessment record revealed that the assessee has purchased one residential house in Aggar Nagar, Ludhiana on 15.11.2011 for Rs. 50,0…