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.

Abha Bansal, Gurgaon vs. PCIT, Central, Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 383/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…

M/S Nilkanth Stone Industries, Valsad vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 386/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.386/Srt/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Nilkanth Stone Industries, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Shop No.A-1/2/3, Nilkanth Of Income Tax, Valsad. Residency, B/H Old Jakarta Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad. [Pan: Aajfn 5653 K] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Surji Chheda - Ca राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ritesh Mishra – Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 08.04.2021 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 27.05.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memeber: 1. This Appeal Under Section 253 Of Income-Tax Act (Act) By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Valsad Hereinafter Referred As “Ld. Pcit” Passed Under Section 263 Of Income-Tax Act (Act) Dated 27.03.2018, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. The Assessee Vide His Application Dated 16.08.2018 Following Concise Grounds Of Appeal: “1. In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit Has Erred In Initiation Of Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Which Was Without Jurisdiction & The Cit Erred In Holding That The Assessment Order Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue On All Issues Discussed In Revision Order & Has Erred In Setting It Aside For Fresh

Section 253Section 263

…343 ITR 329 (Delhi HC),  Jyoti Foundation, 357 ITR 3858 (Delhi HC.),  CIT – Vs. Leisure wear Exports Ltd., 341 ITR 166 (Delhi HC.),  CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Delhi HC),  CIT vs. DLF Power Ltd. 329 ITR 289 (Delhi HC),  CIT vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC),  ITA NO.3206/DEL/2017 Amira Enterprises ltd Vs PCIT,  CIT Vs Arvind Jewellers (259 ITR 502 GUJ HC),  CIT Vs R. K. Construction Co. (313 ITR 65),  Indus Best Hospitality ITA No. 3125/MUM/2017” 7. On ground No.8, the ld.AR submits that the commission of Rs.4.10 lakhs each was paid to Deepakbhai M. Dama & Shri Manjibhai L. Bhanushali. The…

M/S Surjeet Auto Agency, Bhopal vs. Pr CIT-2, Bhopal

ITA 189/IND/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royassessment Year:2015-16 M/S Surjeet Auto Agency, Pr. Cit-2, 4-5, Lajpat Nagar, Raisen Bhopal बनाम/ Road, Apsara Cinema, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Aatfs 4110J Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Piush Parasar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.04.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.05.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: By Way Of This Appeal, The Appellant Has Challenged The Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act 1961( Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’ For Short) By Ld. Pr. Cit-2 Bhopal Vide Order Dated 04.02.2020.The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

…अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MIS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year:2015-16 M/s Surjeet Auto Agency, Pr. CIT-2, 4-5, Lajpat Nagar, Raisen Bhopal बनाम/ Road, Apsara Cinema, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. AATFS 4110J Appellant by S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Piush Parasar Advs. Revenue by Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 13.04.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 25.05.2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M: By way of this appeal, the appellant has chall…

Tej Paul Bhardwaj, Sunam vs. Pr. CIT, Patiala

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

ITA 463/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: The Ao & Furnished The Details Called

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Dahiya CIT (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 54

…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.l361/Kol/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 S.K. Khemka Vs. Pr. CIT-15 Kol. Page 12 year 2005, though retrospective,…

Shri Shaligram Barod, Indore vs. Pr. CIT-1, Indore

ITA 625/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Shaligram Barod, Pr. Cit-I, Ah/29, Hig, Sukhliya Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Ahfpp4068H Appellant By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 54Section 54BSection 54FSection 54F(1)

…eady reference: 6.4.1] The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT as reported in [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) 6.4.2] The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT (Central) v. Max India Ltd. as reported in [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) 6.4.3] The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Associated Food Products (P.) Ltd. as reported in [2006] 280 ITR 377 (Madhya Pradesh) 6.4.4] The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. as reported in [2009] 227 CTR 133 (Delhi) 6.4.5] The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT v. Jyoti Found…

Satish Kumar Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-10, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 260/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ggal and Co. (1966) 220 ITR 167 (MP) Mahavar Traders (1995) 213 ITR 843 (Raj) Emery Stone Mfg. Co. (1992) 198 ITR 611 (Ker) Malabar Industrial Co. - Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 243 ITR 83 -CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)] - CIT v Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR I (SC) - CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan: 384 ITR 200 (SC) -. CIT v. Hindustan Lever Ltd 343 ITR 161(Bom.) - CIT v . Vikas Polymers: 341 ITR 537 (Del.) - CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.: 332 ITR 167 (Del) -CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd: 323 ITR 206 (Born.) - Vimgi Investment (P) Limited: 290 ITR 505…

Akhil Modi, Jaipur vs. Pr. CIT, Alwar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 239/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Apr 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. Surendra Shah (CA)For Respondent: Shri Amrish Bedi (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…for business purpose only. Since the amount of disallowance was small, no appeal was filed. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the action of Ld. AO was prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. It has been held in the case of CIT v. Max India Ltd. reported in 295 ITR 282 (SC) that ‘every loss of revenue cannot be said to be prejudicial to the interests 6 Akhil Modi, Jaipur Vs. Pr. CIT, Alwar of revenue’, This submission of assessee is fortified from the observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Max India (supra) wherein it was held as under: The phrase “prejudicial to the interests of the Reven…

Max Financial Service Limited, Nawanshahr vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

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

ITA 121/ASR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Mar 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Deepak ChopraFor Respondent: Smt.Prabhjot Kaur, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DIVISION BENCH, AMRITSAR (VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE: SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.L. NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 121 (Asr)/2020 (Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/s Max Financial Services Ltd., The Pr. CIT-I., बनाम Bhai Mohan Singh Nagar, C.R. Building, Rail Majra, Tehsil Balachaur, Model Town Road, Distt Nawanshahr. Jalandhar. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCM1204G "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by: Shri Deepak Chopra, Shri Deepak Aggarwal Shri Rohan Khare Ms.Pratishtha Singh राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by: Smt.Prabhjot Kaur, CIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 2…

Vrutti Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-29, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1085/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode)

For Appellant: Shri Paresh Shaparia-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Batham-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. The said principal has been reiterated by Assessment Year: 2014-15 Hon’ble Court in its subsequent judgment titled as CIT V/s Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282). Similar principal has been followed by jurisdictional High Court in Grasim Industries Ltd. V/s CIT (321 ITR 92). The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, CIT V/s Vikas Polymers (194 Taxman 57 16/08/2010) observed that as regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993 203 ITR 108 (Bo…

Shri Rajiv Sharma, Bharatpur vs. Pr.CIT, Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 257/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Mar 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 257/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2011-12 cuke Sh. Rajeev Sharma The Pr. CIT, Vs. S/o Sh. Prahlad Sharma, Alwar. Anah Gate, LBS Park, Bharatpur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: CQMPS 3186 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rajendra Agarwal (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Smt Hema Krishnamurthy

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

ITA/25/2016HC Karnataka01 Mar 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260Section 260ASection 263Section 54F

…ot agree, the order passed by the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The principles laid down in the aforesaid decision were 10 reiterated by the Supreme Court in ‘CIT VS. MAX INDIA LTD.,’ 295 ITR 282 (SC) and recently in ‘ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. AND ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.’, CIVIL APPEAL NO.2773/2020 DECIDED ON 17.07.2020. 9. In the instant case, the assessee sold two vacant residential sites in the Assessment Year 2005-06. The site situate at HSR Layout was sold on 01.07.2004 for a consideration of RS.33,50,000/- and s…

Binod Kumar Mahato, Burdwan vs. Principal CIT - Burdwan, Burdwan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2173/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2021AY 2014-15
Section 144Section 250Section 263Section 271ASection 44A

…ely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Max o rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Max o 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 : India Limited reported in 295 ITR 282 wherein it was held as under : "When the CIT passed the impugned order under "When the CIT passed the impugned order under s. 263, two views were inherently wo views were inherently possible on the word "profits" occurring in the proviso to s.80HHC(3) and therefore, possible on…

Prakash Pandharinath Bakre, Indore vs. Pr.CIT-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 272/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

…h – ITA No. 697/Mum/2017 squarely cover the case of the assessee in his favour. Thus, ld. AO adopted the only view possible or at worst one of the plausible view. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Max India Ltd [2007] 295 ITR 282 iii. Not prejudicial to the interest of revenue- The view adopted by ld. AO is a judicial views. iv. Ld. PCIT erred in holding the order of ld. AO to be erroneous and in the disguise of the same has tried to replace her view with the view of ld. AO. The act of ld. PCIT is illegal. v. Ld. PCIT, in order to impose her view and to ignore the deci…

Pinkcity Jewelhouse Pvt Ltd. 76, Dhuleshwar Garden, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 941/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

…h – ITA No. 697/Mum/2017 squarely cover the case of the assessee in his favour. Thus, ld. AO adopted the only view possible or at worst one of the plausible view. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Max India Ltd [2007] 295 ITR 282 iii. Not prejudicial to the interest of revenue- The view adopted by ld. AO is a judicial views. iv. Ld. PCIT erred in holding the order of ld. AO to be erroneous and in the disguise of the same has tried to replace her view with the view of ld. AO. The act of ld. PCIT is illegal. v. Ld. PCIT, in order to impose her view and to ignore the deci…

Jai Hind Co-Op Hsg. Soc Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-25, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1762/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1763/Mum/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1762/Mum/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Jai Hind Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Acit-25(2) 2Nd Floor, Room No.241 Plot No.51, N.S.Road No.11 बनाम Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle(W) Kautilya Bhavan, G-Block / Vs. Mumbai-400 049 Bkc, Bandra(E) Mumbai-400 051 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaaj-2782-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Rajesh R. Shah-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Pratap Singh-Ld.Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 10/02/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 12/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh R. Shah-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Pratap Singh-Ld.CIT DR
Section 263Section 80(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(d)

…ted as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. The said principal has been reiterated by Hon’ble Court in its subsequent judgment titled as CIT V/s Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282). Similar principal has been Jai Hind Co-operative Housing Society Limited Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 followed by jurisdictional High Court in Grasim Industries Ltd. V/s CIT (321 ITR 92). The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, CIT V/s Vikas Polymers (194 Taxman 57 16/08/2010) observed that as regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneo…

Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3285/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Vs Dcit, B-602, Plot No.F-2, Circle-64(1), The Crescent, B-Block, Room No.314, Sector-50, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Noida. Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aigps3840N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th March, 2015 Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By The Pcit-22, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 22Nd July, 2005 Declaring Income Of Rs.9,00,355/-. The Assessee In The Return Of Income Had Declared Income From Salary At Rs.9,81,964/- & Loss From House Property At Rs.81,609/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 4Th July, 2006 At The Same Income. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 27Th March, 2012 After Obtaining Prior Approval Of The Addl. Cit, Range-7, New Delhi, Vide His Letter No.526 Dated 27Th March, 2012. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 147/143(3) On 28Th March, 2013, Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.11,03,270/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs.9,00,355/- Wherein He Made The Following Additions:-

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 17Section 17(2)Section 263Section 68Section 69C

…ns of section 263 cannot be applied. The ld. Counsel also relied on the following decisions:- i) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers, 341 ITR 537 (Del); ii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., 332 ITR 167 (Del); iii) CIT vs. DLF Ltd., 350 ITR 555 (Del); iv) CIT vs. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282; v) ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd., 343 ITR 329 (Del); vi) Director of Income-tax vs. Jyoti Foundation, 357 ITR 388 (Del); vii) PCIT vs. Vinita Chaurasia, 394 ITR 758 (Del); viii) Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd., 398 ITR 8 (Del) ix) Shri Abhimanyu Gupta vs. PCIT, ITA No. 771/CHD/2017; x) Narayan Tatu Rane vs. ITO 70 taxmann.com 227 (Mumbai…

Eicher Goodearth Investment Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT- IV, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5815/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2007-08] Eicher Motors Ltd. [Erstwhile Vs. The C.I.T Eicher Goodearth Investment Ltd] Delhi Iv Eicher House, 12, Commercial Complex New Delhi Pan: Aaace 0052 D [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 263

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘B’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER [A.Y 2007-08] Eicher Motors Ltd. [Erstwhile Vs. The C.I.T Eicher Goodearth Investment Ltd] Delhi IV Eicher House, 12, Commercial Complex New Delhi PAN: AAACE 0052 D [Appellant] [Respondent] Assessee by : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, CA Revenue by : Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 21.01.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 25.01.2021 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, With this appeal, the appellan…

Dhirendra International (P) Ltd., Neemuch vs. Pr. CIT Ujjain, Ujjain

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

ITA 750/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

…decisions of Hon'ble Courts both conditions must co-exit for proceedings under section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961. Aditya Mundra &Others ITA No.632, 634,635 & 637, 517 & 750/Ind/2019 Tara Devi Aggarwal (Smt.) vs. CIT 88 ITR 323 (SC). CIT vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. 171 ITR 141 (MP). CIT vs.'Shri Govindram Seksariya Charity Trust 166 ITR 580 (MP) CIT vs. Gabrial India Ltd. 203 ITR 109 (Bom). CIT vs. Smt. Minalben S.Parikh 215 ITR 81 (Guj). CIT vs. Sohana Woollen Mills 296 ITR 238 (P& H). It is therefore prayed your honour that the proceedings may please be dropped.…

Shri Manoj Mundra, Indore vs. PCIT Ujjain, Ujjain

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

ITA 637/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

…decisions of Hon'ble Courts both conditions must co-exit for proceedings under section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961. Aditya Mundra &Others ITA No.632, 634,635 & 637, 517 & 750/Ind/2019 Tara Devi Aggarwal (Smt.) vs. CIT 88 ITR 323 (SC). CIT vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. 171 ITR 141 (MP). CIT vs.'Shri Govindram Seksariya Charity Trust 166 ITR 580 (MP) CIT vs. Gabrial India Ltd. 203 ITR 109 (Bom). CIT vs. Smt. Minalben S.Parikh 215 ITR 81 (Guj). CIT vs. Sohana Woollen Mills 296 ITR 238 (P& H). It is therefore prayed your honour that the proceedings may please be dropped.…

Shri Manish Mundra, Indore vs. PCIT Ujjain, Ujjain

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

ITA 635/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

…decisions of Hon'ble Courts both conditions must co-exit for proceedings under section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961. Aditya Mundra &Others ITA No.632, 634,635 & 637, 517 & 750/Ind/2019 Tara Devi Aggarwal (Smt.) vs. CIT 88 ITR 323 (SC). CIT vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. 171 ITR 141 (MP). CIT vs.'Shri Govindram Seksariya Charity Trust 166 ITR 580 (MP) CIT vs. Gabrial India Ltd. 203 ITR 109 (Bom). CIT vs. Smt. Minalben S.Parikh 215 ITR 81 (Guj). CIT vs. Sohana Woollen Mills 296 ITR 238 (P& H). It is therefore prayed your honour that the proceedings may please be dropped.…