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 367,194 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.

Chinmaya Educational Society, Solan vs. CIT(E), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 38/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Aug 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, AdvFor Respondent: Smt.C.Chandrakanta, CIT DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 153Section 263

….CIT(E) by exercising his revisionary powers u/s 263 of the Act setting aside the assessment order and directing the AO to pass afresh order in accordance with law. As rightly pointed out by the Ld.CIT(E), the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Max Power Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC) has held that view of the AO which is unsustainable in law invites the application of section 263 of the Act. A.Y. 2016-17 Page 7 of 8 7. Moreover, prejudice is also caused on account of the AO not having disallowed the excess remuneration paid after finding so, while computing the assessable income of the assessee. 8. In view of the sa…

Misys Trade & Risk Management India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 7(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1800/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Misys Trade & The Acit, Risk Management India Circle-7(2)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No.573, 5Th Floor, 1302, Tower-3, Aayakar Bhavan, Indiabulls Finance Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Centre, Mumbai - 400020 Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (West), Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaect1497K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nitessh Joshi, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Anil Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.11.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nitessh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…iberations cannot be dislodged by the CIT/Pr.CIT in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Sec. 263 is fortified by the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT Vs. Max India Ltd (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). Also, support his drawn from the judgments of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) and CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd (1993)203 ITR 108 (Bom). Accordingly, not being able to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the view taken by the Pr.CIT that the order passed by the A.O under Sec.…

M/S. the India Cements Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle - 2 (1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 833/CHNY/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Mr. S.Bharath,CITFor Respondent: 13.07.2021
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,‘डी’ "याय पीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी.दुगा" राव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी.मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम% BEFORE SHRI V.DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.833/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2007-08) M/s. India Cements Limited Vs The Deputy Commissioner of 93, Coromandel Towers Income Tax, Santhome High Road, Corporate Circle-2(1) Chennai R.A.Puram,Chennai-600 028. PAN: AAACT 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/ Appellant by : Mr. S.Bhar…

M/S Active Tools (P). Limited, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -II, Jalandhar

ITA 260/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 115Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 154Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69CSection 69D

…e treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law.” A similar view has also been taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT 32. Vs Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (supra), wherein it has been held as under: “The phrase "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" in section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1962, 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 pre…

Sh. Gurbachan Singh Brar, Moga vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Moga

ITA 207/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 263(1)

…two conditions are met, i.e., that the order is erroneous and is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. [See Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, [2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC)/[2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd., (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC)] Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:06.07.2021 10:30:10 11.1. Therefore, the error should be one that is not debatable or a plausible view. Section 263 of the Act invests a power of revision in a superior officer and therefore, by the very nature of the power, does not allow for supplanting or substitutin…

Sh. Santokh Singh Brar, Moga vs. ITO, Ward - 2, Moga

ITA 206/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 263(1)

…two conditions are met, i.e., that the order is erroneous and is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. [See Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, [2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC)/[2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd., (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC)] Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:06.07.2021 10:30:10 11.1. Therefore, the error should be one that is not debatable or a plausible view. Section 263 of the Act invests a power of revision in a superior officer and therefore, by the very nature of the power, does not allow for supplanting or substitutin…

M/S I G Petrochemicals Ltd vs. The Asst Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

ITA/219/2011HC Karnataka04 Aug 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 260Section 263

…vant assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The ratio of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 243 ITR 83 and CIT vs. Max India Ltd. Reported in 295 ITR 282 (SC), are, therefore, not applicable to the facts of the assessee's case. In the case of CIT vs. Gokuldas Exports relied upon by the assessee, 12 the facts and circumstances under which the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court held that the CIT was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 263 were different from the facts and circu…

Keva Frgrances Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 4 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 334/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Bhat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj, D.R
Section 115J

…iberations cannot be dislodged by the CIT/Pr.CIT in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Sec. 263 is fortified by the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT Vs. Max India Ltd (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). Also, support his drawn from the judgments of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) and CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd (1993)203 ITR 108 (Bom). Accordingly, not being able to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the view taken by the Pr.CIT that the order passed by the A.O under Sec.…

Vinayak Mhatre, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 26, Mumbai

ITA 2561/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita Nos.2559 To 2562/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12) M/S Vinayak Mhatre Pr. Cit-26 Flat No. B/10, Navsahjivan Chs Vs. 4Th Floor,C-10, Ltd, Shiv Srushti, Kurla (East), Pratyaksha Kar Bhawan, Mumbai 400 024 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 051

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kipgen,, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 44A

…not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, unless the view taken by the A.O is unsustainable in law, is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). As such, not finding favour with the order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act, dated 23.03.2017, we herein set-aside the same and restore the order passed by the A.O u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated 25.03.2015. 11. The appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 and A.Y. 2010-11 I…

Vinayak Mhatre, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 26, Mumbai

ITA 2560/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita Nos.2559 To 2562/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12) M/S Vinayak Mhatre Pr. Cit-26 Flat No. B/10, Navsahjivan Chs Vs. 4Th Floor,C-10, Ltd, Shiv Srushti, Kurla (East), Pratyaksha Kar Bhawan, Mumbai 400 024 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 051

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kipgen,, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 44A

…not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, unless the view taken by the A.O is unsustainable in law, is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). As such, not finding favour with the order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act, dated 23.03.2017, we herein set-aside the same and restore the order passed by the A.O u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated 25.03.2015. 11. The appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 and A.Y. 2010-11 I…

Vinayak Mhatre, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 26, Mumbai

ITA 2559/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita Nos.2559 To 2562/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12) M/S Vinayak Mhatre Pr. Cit-26 Flat No. B/10, Navsahjivan Chs Vs. 4Th Floor,C-10, Ltd, Shiv Srushti, Kurla (East), Pratyaksha Kar Bhawan, Mumbai 400 024 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 051

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kipgen,, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 44A

…not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, unless the view taken by the A.O is unsustainable in law, is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). As such, not finding favour with the order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act, dated 23.03.2017, we herein set-aside the same and restore the order passed by the A.O u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated 25.03.2015. 11. The appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 and A.Y. 2010-11 I…

M/S Radhishwari Devlopers P Ltd, Indore vs. Pr CIT -2 Indore, Indore

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

ITA 493/IND/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Jul 2021

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ommissioner does not agree with and which results in a loss of revenue, it cannot be treated as erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of revenue, unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is completely unsustainable in law. CIT v. Max India Limited 295 ITR 282(SC), Malbar Industries Co. Ltd. v. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC); d. Since the Assessing Officer made proper enquiry and examined accounts, it could not be said that there was non-application of mind by him. Hence, the action under section 263 was held invalid. Antala Sanjay Kumar Raviji Bhai V. CIT 135 ITD 506 (Rajkot) (Trib.), Roshan Lal Vegetable Produc…

Shrimati Ravinder Bawa, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 703/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 69A

…e treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law.” 28. A similar view has also been taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (supra), wherein it has been held as under: 24 29. “The phrase "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" in section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1962, 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…

Rutvi Oilfields Services Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. Pr. CIT, Gurgaon

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3291/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

…3 of the Act, which is not mentioning the reason on which the Pr. CIT has held that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd 295 ITR 282, Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 243 ITR 83. The Ld. AR also relied upon the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 and ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 74 DTR 153. 6. The Ld. DR submitted that valuation report referred by the assessee / Ld. AR was not before the Assessing Officer. Fu…

M/S Rosemary Vincom LLP, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 47(5), Kolkata

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

ITA 65/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jun 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…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,…

M/S. Linguanext Technologies Private Limited, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -6, Pune

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

ITA 806/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jun 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 263Section 40

…Officer adopted one of possible views, the assessment order cannot be termed as erroneous order by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., 109 Taxman 66 (SC) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282 (SC). 5. It is further contended that even if the nature of services rendered by the said Mr. David Crouch who is a non-resident falls under employee and employer relationship, the entire services were rendered by the said Mr. David Crouch outside India. The salary paid by the appellant company becomes taxable in India only in case the services w…

DCIT CC 3(2) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Vivek Mehrotra, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2171/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi (AR)For Respondent: Shri Narendra Singh Janpangi (DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 80I

…itted, since the AO has disregarded the decision of the Tribunal while rejectiong assessee’s claim, it amounts to improper recording of satisfaction. In support, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC). 14. Without prejudice, the learned counsel submitted, the disallowance computed by the AO, in any case, is high and excessive, as he has also included those investments on which the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the year. He submitted, after excluding the investment on which the assessee had not earned any exempt income,…

Roop Kumar Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT (Central), Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 386/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

…& 386/Del./2021 Smt. Abha Bansal, Sh Pankaj Bansal, Sh Basant Bansal And Sh Roop Kumar Bansal, Gurgaon. High Court in the case of CIT vs., DLF Ltd., [2013] 350 ITR 555 (Del.); Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT vs., Max India Ltd., [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., vs., CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC). He has submitted that since compensation received by assessee is for non-delivery of the Villas and, therefore, determination of capital gain on cancellation of BBA for allotment of Villas by the A.O. based on the claim of assessee is in accordance with Law. Therefore, proceed…

Shri Basant Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT (Central), Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 385/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

…& 386/Del./2021 Smt. Abha Bansal, Sh Pankaj Bansal, Sh Basant Bansal And Sh Roop Kumar Bansal, Gurgaon. High Court in the case of CIT vs., DLF Ltd., [2013] 350 ITR 555 (Del.); Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT vs., Max India Ltd., [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., vs., CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC). He has submitted that since compensation received by assessee is for non-delivery of the Villas and, therefore, determination of capital gain on cancellation of BBA for allotment of Villas by the A.O. based on the claim of assessee is in accordance with Law. Therefore, proceed…

Pankaj Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT (Central), Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 384/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

…& 386/Del./2021 Smt. Abha Bansal, Sh Pankaj Bansal, Sh Basant Bansal And Sh Roop Kumar Bansal, Gurgaon. High Court in the case of CIT vs., DLF Ltd., [2013] 350 ITR 555 (Del.); Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT vs., Max India Ltd., [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., vs., CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC). He has submitted that since compensation received by assessee is for non-delivery of the Villas and, therefore, determination of capital gain on cancellation of BBA for allotment of Villas by the A.O. based on the claim of assessee is in accordance with Law. Therefore, proceed…