How many judgments cite CIT v. Max India Ltd.?

1,162 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Max India Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 144B, Section 143(2), Section 147.

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

Issues it is cited on

malabar industrial inadequate enquiry revision u/s 263 assessment order erroneous lack of enquiry revision under section 263 section 263(1)erroneous and prejudicial section 263 section 26 principal commissioner of income-tax non-application of mind

Judgments citing CIT v. Max India Ltd.

Varun Khandelwal, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-2, Mumbai

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

ITA 1963/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ken 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.” 6 Varun Khandelwal 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, even if there is no detailed discussion in the assessment order. If there was any enquiry, even inadequate would not by itself give occ…

Jeevan Deep Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 1439/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…ken 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, even if there is no detailed discussion in the assessment order. If there was any enquiry, even inadequate would not by itself give occasion to the Commiss…

Shakuntala Singhvi, Jabalpur vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is allowed

ITA 31/JAB/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Anil Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 45Section 54E

…hander & Anr. (in TC(A) No. 419 & 533/2014, dated 15/09/2014/at PB pgs.48-51), as indeed by several orders by the Appellate Tribunal. No revision under the circumstances would lie, for which reliance is placed on the decisions in CIT vs. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC); Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83; and CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers [2004] 270 ITR 157 (MP). The Revenue‟s case, on the other hand, is that there has been no enquiry whatsoever by the AO during the assessment proceedings in the matter, with it being trite law that an absence of enquiry would per se result in the order being…

Mayur Khara, Yavatmal vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Nagpur

In the result, Both the appeals of above mentioned assessee’s are allowed

ITA 64/NAG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Mayur Khara Vs. The Pcit Datta Chowk Nagpur-2 Yavatmalm 445 001 (Maharastra) Pan No.:Abwpk 8869 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Amit Khara Vs. The Pcit Datta Chowk Nagpur-2 Yavatmalm 445 001 (Maharastra) Pan No.:Abwpk 8868 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Atal, Ca Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Above Mentioned Assessees Against Two Different Orders Passed U/S 263 Of The Act By The Ld. Pr.Cit, Nagpur- 2 Dated 17-02-2017 & 16-02-20217 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Respectively. The Grounds Of Raised By The Above Mentioned Assessees Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Atal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ted. The ld. AR of appellant also relied on the following cases with regard to the very jurisdiction invoked under section 263 and submits that in absence of the twin conditions being satisfied, the revision was not justified. a. CIT v. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) b. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT[2000] 243 ITR 83(SC), c. CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108(Bom)(HC) d. CIT vs. Vikas Polymers [2012] 341 ITR 537(Delhi)(HC) e. CIT vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR632 (Bom)(HC), f. Grasim Industries Ltd vs. CIT [2010] 321 ITR 92(Bom)(HC) g. CIT vs.…

Trivitron Healthcare P Ltd., Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 97/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. M.Rajan, CITFor Respondent: 17.05.2022

Section 2Section 263Section 32(1)

…be treated as erroneous & prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, unless view taken by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and unsustainable in law. This legal principle is also laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282. In our considered view, view taken by the Assessing Officer on the issue of depreciation on goodwill is a possible view, because when 5th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act, has no application to the given facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer cannot 29 take any view, which is contrary to provisions of section 32(1) of…

Shashikant Vijay Khairnar, Dhule vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax -1, Nashik

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

ITA 486/PUN/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.486/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shashikant Vijay Khairnar, Vs. Pcit-1, Nashik. Plot No.205, Jaihind Colony, Deopur, Dhule- 424002. Pan : Avipk5759P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vinay Kawdia Revenue By : Shri Kalika Singh Date Of Hearing : 27.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax- 1, Nashik (Pcit) Dated 20.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Engaged In The Business Of Trading In Cotton Seed Cake. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Was Filed On 15.09.2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,96,460/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2, Dhule (‘The Assessing Officer’) Vide Order Dated 20.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawdiaFor Respondent: Shri Kalika Singh

Section 143(3)Section 263

…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”. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, no doubt in the present case the assess…

Radiant Life Care Mumbai P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 896/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 Radiant Life Care Mumbai Pvt. Ltd., Principle Commissioner Of 401, 4Th Floor Man Excellenza, S.V. Income Tax Mumbai-3, Road, Vile Parle (W), Vs. R. No. 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400056. Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aagcr 9198 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Gupta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 56(2)

…cer adopted one of the two permissible view in the law. In support of contention, the Ld. counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malbar Ind. Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (Supreme Court) and CIT v. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) and CIT v. Nirav Modi [2017] 390 ITR 292 (Bombay). In our opinion, the Assessing Officer has not enquired the matter on those two issues at all and the question of making a view on those issues is too far. Therefore, ratios of the above decisions relied upon can’t be relied in the fact of the case. 7.24 The Ld. counsel submitted that revisi…

Radiant Life Care Mumbai P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 895/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Gupta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 56(2)

Learning Curve Edutech Solutions Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT-7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 832/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2015-16

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…t cannot be the subject matter of revision. Reliance in this regard is placed on Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (reported in 203 ITR 108) and decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282). 9. We find that learned Departmental Representative during the course of hearing had placed reliance on various decisions as under :- • CIT Vs. Eastern Medikit Ltd. (337 ITR 56)(Del) • Raj Mandir Estates (P) Ltd. Vs. PCIT (77 taxmann.com 285)(SC) 12 Learning Curve Edutech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. • Deniel Merchants (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO dated 29.11.20…

Clifton Pearson Export & Agencies, Kolkata vs. PCIT-5, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 546/KOL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 3

…the view taken by the AO is not sustainable in law or not in accordance with law or contrary to the facts , the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act can not be resorted to. In defense of this arguments, the ld A.R relied on the decision of CIT vs. Maxx India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC). The ld. Counsel also argued that where the AO has conducted the proper enquiries by calling upon the assessee to explain the particular point and the assessee has duly responded the same and furnished all the required information/details and the AO has framed the assessment after considering the same, even then the assessment order cannot b…

Vilas Kedu Birari, Nashik vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax -1, Nashik

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

ITA 217/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 May 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj DandgavalFor Respondent: Shri Navin Gupta

Section 263

…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”. In the present case, there is nothing on record to indicate that the Assessing Officer had caused neces…

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

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 3075/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.3075/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Plot No.1, Sr. No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi ,Pune- 411 014. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aabce4323Q बनधम / V/S. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune Assessee By : Shri Vishal Karla Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe

For Appellant: Shri Vishal KarlaFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(8)Section 40Section 80ISection 92C

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JM AND SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.3075/PUN/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Cluster C, Wing 1, EON Free Zone, Plot No.1, Sr. No.77, MIDC Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi ,Pune- 411 014. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant PAN : AABCE4323Q बनधम / V/s. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent DCIT, Circle-1(2), Pune Assessee by : Shri Vishal Karla Revenue by : Shri S. P. Walimbe सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date of Hearing : 20.04.2022 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date of Pronou…

Shri Krishna Agri Projects Private Limited, Kolkata vs. P.C.I.T., -4, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 380/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263

…fense of his arguments relied on the decisions of jurisdiction High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Kesoram Industries Ltd. (2020) 423 ITR 180(Cal) and also a number of other decisions namely Malabar Industrial Co vs. CIT 198 ITR 611(SC) ,CIT vs. Maxx India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC) and CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108(Bom). 6. The ld. D.R on the other hand submitted before the bench that during the course of survey, the survey team impounded certain paper which comprised of two profit and loss account of the same date disclosing one net profit of Rs. 46,82,054/- whereas the other showed net loss of Rs. 26…

Cygnus Vanijya Private Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-11(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 361/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2022AY 2015-16

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

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 26Section 263

…d inquiry has been conducted and thus ld. PCIT erred in holding that there was lack of 5 A.Y. 2015-2016 Cygnus Vanijya Private Limited inquiry and the same is factually incorrect. Reliance as placed on the following decisions:- (i) CIT Vs. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282 (S.C.); (ii) CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del.); (iii) CIT Vs. Anil Kumar Sharma, 335 ITR 83 (Del); (iv) CIT Vs. Vikas Polymers, 236 CTR 476/194 Taxman 57; (v) Hari Iron Trading Co. Vs. CIT, 263 ITR 437 (P&H); (vi) Malabar Industrial Co, Ltd. Vs. CIT, 243 ITR 83 (S.C.); (vii) CIT Vs, Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. 331 ITR…

M/S Rajendra and Ursula Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

ITA 57/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Mehar (CIT)

Section 263Section 5

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’A’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM deys’k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 56/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2016-17 cuke M/s Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Principal Commissioner of Vs. Development Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Income Tax-2, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAGCR 4665 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 57/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :20…

M/S Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Developement Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur, Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

ITA 56/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Mehar (CIT)

Section 263Section 5

Chandrikaben Harish Shah, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, 7(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1835/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2010-11 Chandrikaben Harish Shah Ito, Ward-7(4) Kinjal House Vs Ahmedabad. 2, Karnavati Society Usmanpura Ahmedabad 380 013. Pan : Bpyps 5968 D

For Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

…t of her claim. However, written arguments filed by the assessee is also challenging invocation of section 263 and also relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT Vs. Max India Ltd, (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). Thus, the assessee pleaded in the written submission to quash 263-order passed by the ld.CIT and allow the appeal of the assessee. 6 9. Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that revision order passed by the Commissioner is well within the provisions of section 263 of the Act. There is nothing on the assessment record to show that vouchers for c…

Harish Pannalal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer-7(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1834/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2010-11 Harish P. Shah Ito, Ward-7(4) Kinjal House Vs Ahmedabad. 2, Karnavati Society Usmanpura Ahmedabad 380 013. Pan : Bpyps 6480 Q

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

…t of his claim. However, written arguments filed by the assessee is also challenging invocation of section 263 and also relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT Vs. Max India Ltd, (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). In para- 17 of the written submissions, the assessee pleaded that it was due to an inadvertent mistake that the long term capital gain was assessed in his hand though the same was supposed to be assessed in the hands of M/s.Kinjal Metal Ltd. and relied upon the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Chandrakant J. Patel Vs. V.…

Rajiv Jain, Muzaffarnagar vs. Pr.CIT, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above

ITA 530/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 263(2)

…n, he relied upon the following decisions: 1. Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. CIT 243ITR 83 SC 2. ITO Vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR329 Del. 3. Surya Merchants Ltd. Vs. DCIT Manu/ID/0628/2016 dated 8-7-16 ITAT Del. 4. CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 SC 5. Shivalaya construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT Manu /ID/0265/2017 dated 16.8.2017 (TTATDelhi). 6. Braham Dev Gupta Vs. Pr. CIT (2017) 187 TTJ (Delhi) 001. 7. Mrs. Khatiza Vs. ITO 100 ITD 173 (Mum) 8. Dhruv n. Shah Vs. DCIT (2004) 82 TTJ (Mum.) 369 9. Ashok Maniklal Thakkar Vs. ACIT, 97 ITD 361 (Ahd.) 6 ITA No. 530/Del./2021 AY : 2015-16…

Sandeep P. Parikh, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -16, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 678/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesandeep P. Parikh Vs. Pr. Cit- 16 B-6, Anand Bhavan, Room No. 437, 4Th Bajaj Road, Vile Parle Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (W), Mumbai – 400056 Mk Road, Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajpp8447R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Pankaj Toprani.Ar Respondent By : Shri Ajay. K. Srivastava.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-16, Mumbai Passed U/Sec 263 Of The Act, 1961. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That There Is A Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal Due To Covid-19 Pandemic. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Sandeep P. Parikh, Mumbai. Delay & We Find The Facts Mentioned In The Affidavit Are Reasonable & Acceptable. The Ld.Dr Has No Specific Objections. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Pankaj Toprani.ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay. K. Srivastava.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28

…all cases in which a receipt is sought to be taxed as income, the burden lies upon the 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,…