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.

Shri Govind Das Mundra, Indore vs. PCIT Ujjain, Ujjain

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

ITA 634/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 Aditya Mundra, Dewas vs. PCIT Ujjain, Ujjain

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

ITA 632/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.…

M/S. Charitra Gold Pvt. Ltd., Ratlam vs. The Pr. CIT, Ujjain

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

ITA 517/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.…

M/S Sutures India Pvt Ltd vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result the substantial questions of law are

ITA/115/2010HC Karnataka13 Jan 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 260Section 260ASection 263Section 80HSection 80I

…sition that where the view taken by assessing officer is one of the possible views the powers under section 263 of the Act would not be invoked [See: 'MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX', 243 ITR 83 (SC), CIT V. MAX INDIA LTD., 295 ITR 282 AND ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. V. STATE OF 13 RAJASTHAN, (2020) 117 TAXMANN.COM 807 (SC)]. 8. In the backdrop of aforesaid well settled legal position, we may advert to the facts of the case. The assessee had filed Form No.10CCB of the Act along with written submissions before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was ac…

Essar Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 6, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3759/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Vajresh Consultants Prcit 6, Ltd. (Earlier Known As Aayakar Bhavan, Essar Capital Ltd.), Mumbai - 400020 Vs. 40-B, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400 006 Pan: Aabce 7257R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. & Shri Hiten Chande, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

…e prima facie pre meditated transactions renders the assessment being "erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue". This also emerges from the ratio of the decisions such as Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs C1T 243 ITR 83(30, CIT vs Max India ltd. 295 ITR 282(SC), CIT Vs Mangal Castings 303 ITR 23CP&H), CIT v. Kohinoor Tobacco Products(P)Ltd.[1998] 234 ITR 557, CIT v. Mahavar Trader s[1996J 220 ITR 167(MP), Duggal &Co.v. CIT [996] 220 ITR 456, CIT vs MEPCO Industries Ltd 294 ITR 121 (Mad,), MemttRoller Flour Mills Ltd vs CIT[2013J 35 Tatman.com 1S3(AIL), Bharti Hexacom Ltd v CIT [2013] 33 Taxman.com.2…

Play Games 24 X 7 Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr. .CIT-(A) 13, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3910/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Dhamija
Section 263

…v) DIT v. Jyoti Foundation (2013) 357 ITR 388 (Del); and, vi) Globus Infocom Ltd. v. CIT (2014) 369 ITR 14 (Del) Furthermore, following case laws have been referred :- i) Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC); ii) CIT v. Max India (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC); iii) CIT v. Reliance Communication Ltd., 396 ITR 217 (Bom); and, iv) Spectra Shares & Scrips (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, 354 ITR 35 (AP) Lastly, it has been submitted that insertion of Explanation 2 by the Finance Act 2015 has not diluted the basic requirement of the section which still needs to be satisfied before invoking the revision jurisdiction…

K R Satyanarayana vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the orders passed by the Commissioner of

ITA/192/2015HC Karnataka21 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(2)Section 154Section 260Section 260ASection 263Section 50CSection 80C

…oes not 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 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 backdrop of aforesaid well settled legal position, we may advert to the facts of the case. From perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner of income Tax, it is evident that he has invoked p…

Smt. Shweta Agrawal, Indore vs. The Pr. CIT-2, Indore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 280/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2014-15

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Shweta Agrawal Pr.CIT 82, Ashok Nagar, Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.AESPA1653H Appellant by Shri S.N. Agrawal, CA Revenue by Shri Puneet Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 20.10.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 21.12.2020 आदेश / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (in short ‘Ld. Pr. CIT’)-2, Indore…

Versova Shanti Co-Operative Housing Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 25, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1056/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Tikekar-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Lalit Dehiya -Ld.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80PSection 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 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…

D.Ramagopal, Coimbatore vs. DCIT Central Circle 1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the

ITA 1218/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1212 To 1218/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2014-15) Mr. Dhamodarasamy Ramagopal, Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O.G.Vijaychand Jhabakh, Income Tax, 157, P.M.Swamy Colony, Central Circle-1 5Th Street, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore-641 018. Coimbatore-641 006. Pan:Akgpr3621L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CITFor Respondent: 10.11.2020
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 271F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा "य"एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद&य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1212 to 1218/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2014-15) Mr. Dhamodarasamy Ramagopal, Vs The Deputy Commissioner of C/o.G.Vijaychand Jhabakh, Income Tax, 157, P.M.Swamy Colony, Central Circle-1 5th Street, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore-641 018. Coimbatore-641 006. PAN:AKGPR3621L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocat…

D.Ramagopal, Coimbatore vs. DCIT Central Circle 1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the

ITA 1217/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1212 To 1218/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2014-15) Mr. Dhamodarasamy Ramagopal, Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O.G.Vijaychand Jhabakh, Income Tax, 157, P.M.Swamy Colony, Central Circle-1 5Th Street, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore-641 018. Coimbatore-641 006. Pan:Akgpr3621L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CITFor Respondent: 10.11.2020
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 271F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा "य"एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद&य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1212 to 1218/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2014-15) Mr. Dhamodarasamy Ramagopal, Vs The Deputy Commissioner of C/o.G.Vijaychand Jhabakh, Income Tax, 157, P.M.Swamy Colony, Central Circle-1 5th Street, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore-641 018. Coimbatore-641 006. PAN:AKGPR3621L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocat…

D.Ramagopal, Coimbatore vs. DCIT Central Circle 1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the

ITA 1212/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1212 To 1218/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2014-15) Mr. Dhamodarasamy Ramagopal, Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O.G.Vijaychand Jhabakh, Income Tax, 157, P.M.Swamy Colony, Central Circle-1 5Th Street, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore-641 018. Coimbatore-641 006. Pan:Akgpr3621L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CITFor Respondent: 10.11.2020
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 271F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा "य"एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद&य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1212 to 1218/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2014-15) Mr. Dhamodarasamy Ramagopal, Vs The Deputy Commissioner of C/o.G.Vijaychand Jhabakh, Income Tax, 157, P.M.Swamy Colony, Central Circle-1 5th Street, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore-641 018. Coimbatore-641 006. PAN:AKGPR3621L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocat…

D.Ramagopal, Coimbatore vs. DCIT Central Circle 1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the

ITA 1216/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1212 To 1218/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2014-15) Mr. Dhamodarasamy Ramagopal, Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O.G.Vijaychand Jhabakh, Income Tax, 157, P.M.Swamy Colony, Central Circle-1 5Th Street, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore-641 018. Coimbatore-641 006. Pan:Akgpr3621L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CITFor Respondent: 10.11.2020
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 271F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा "य"एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद&य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1212 to 1218/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2014-15) Mr. Dhamodarasamy Ramagopal, Vs The Deputy Commissioner of C/o.G.Vijaychand Jhabakh, Income Tax, 157, P.M.Swamy Colony, Central Circle-1 5th Street, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore-641 018. Coimbatore-641 006. PAN:AKGPR3621L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocat…

D.Ramagopal, Coimbatore vs. DCIT Central Circle 1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the

ITA 1215/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1212 To 1218/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2014-15) Mr. Dhamodarasamy Ramagopal, Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O.G.Vijaychand Jhabakh, Income Tax, 157, P.M.Swamy Colony, Central Circle-1 5Th Street, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore-641 018. Coimbatore-641 006. Pan:Akgpr3621L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CITFor Respondent: 10.11.2020
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 271F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा "य"एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद&य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1212 to 1218/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2014-15) Mr. Dhamodarasamy Ramagopal, Vs The Deputy Commissioner of C/o.G.Vijaychand Jhabakh, Income Tax, 157, P.M.Swamy Colony, Central Circle-1 5th Street, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore-641 018. Coimbatore-641 006. PAN:AKGPR3621L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocat…

D.Ramagopal, Coimbatore vs. DCIT Central Circle 1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the

ITA 1213/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1212 To 1218/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2014-15) Mr. Dhamodarasamy Ramagopal, Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O.G.Vijaychand Jhabakh, Income Tax, 157, P.M.Swamy Colony, Central Circle-1 5Th Street, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore-641 018. Coimbatore-641 006. Pan:Akgpr3621L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CITFor Respondent: 10.11.2020
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 271F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा "य"एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद&य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1212 to 1218/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2014-15) Mr. Dhamodarasamy Ramagopal, Vs The Deputy Commissioner of C/o.G.Vijaychand Jhabakh, Income Tax, 157, P.M.Swamy Colony, Central Circle-1 5th Street, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore-641 018. Coimbatore-641 006. PAN:AKGPR3621L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocat…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Bosch Limited

In the result, we find no merit in the appeal

ITA/368/2016HC Karnataka30 Nov 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10BSection 260Section 263Section 35Section 35(2)

…oes not 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 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. 10. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law, the facts of the case may be seen. The Tribunal in paragraph No.18 of its order has held that the assessee has demonstrated that the enquiries contemplated by…

Ramila Diam Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-5, Mumbai

Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2340/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2340/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2341/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2342/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) Ramila Diam Pvt. Ltd. The Pr. Commissioner Of B-401, 4 Th Floor, Anand Building, Income Tax-5, Tirupati Apartments, Bhulabhai बिाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Desai Road, Mumbai-400 026 Karve Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 (अपीलाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aaecr8201P अपीलाथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri M Subramanian, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri K. Madhusudan, Dr सुििाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21.10.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 24.11.2020

For Appellant: Shri M Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…findings of Assessing Officer, the PCIT cannot invoke revisional jurisdiction. The learned AR in support of his contention placed reliance on the following decisions: - Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bombay) 2.2 The learned AR on merits of the addition submitted that the Assessing Officer has made addition by estimating gross profit on alleged bogus entries. Although estimation of GP by Assessing Officer is on the higher side i.e. as against the GP of 4% declared by the assessee, the Asses…

Deccan Jewellers Private Limited, Vijayawada vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(Central), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/VIZ/2020[10000]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Nov 2020

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.140/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-2018) M/S Deccan Jewellers Private Limited Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of K.B.N.Complex Income Tax (Central) D.No.27-16-65 Visakhapatnam Governorpet Vijayawada [Pan : Aaccd1524H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shrim.V.Prasad.Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Dr 22.09.2020 सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2020

For Appellant: ShriM.V.Prasad.ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 69

…for treating the stock as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act and also objected for taking up the case for revision u/s 263 of the Act and relied on the following decisions. i) Malabar Industries Co.Ltd Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) ii) CIT Vs. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282 (SC) iii) Spectra Shares and Scrips P.Ltd. Vs.CIT 36 Taxmann.com 348 (HC AP) iv) CIT Vs. Srinivasa Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd., 60 Taxmann.com 207 (HC AP) v) CIT Vs. P.D.Abraham 48 taxmann.com 352 (Kerala HC) vi) Bajargan Traders Vs. ACIT ITA No.137/JP/17, dated 17.03.2017 vii) CIT Vs. S.K.Srigiri and Brothers 298 ITR 13 viii) DCIT Vs. V.Ram Narayan Bir…

Deccan Tobacco Company, Guntur vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(Central), Viskhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/VIZ/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Nov 2020AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.139/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) M/S Deccan Tobacco Company Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax D.No.5-7-6-1/5, Brodipet (Central) Guntur Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aahfd1174H]

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal. CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 142(1)Section 263Section 69

…ore the Pr.CIT 3 I.T.A. No139/Viz/2020, A.Y.2017-18 M/s Deccan Tobacco Company, Guntur to take up the case for revision u/s 263 of the Act and relied on the following decisions. i) Malabar Industries Co.Ltd Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) ii) CIT Vs. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282 (SC) iii) Spectra Shares and Scrips P.Ltd. Vs.CIT 36 Taxmann.com 348 (HC AP) iv) CIT Vs. Srinivasa Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd., 60 Taxmann.com 207 (HC AP) v) CIT Vs. P.D.Abraham 48 taxmann.com 352 (Kerala HC) vi) Bajargan Traders Vs. ACIT ITA No.137/JP/17, dated 17.03.2017 vii) CIT Vs. S.K.Srigiri and Brothers 298 ITR 13 viii) DCIT Vs. V.Ram Narayan Bir…

Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineers Ltd, Kolkata vs. Princiapal C.I.T., Kolkata - I, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1100/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Ms. Madhumita Roy, Hon’Ble] [Through Virtual Court] I.T.A. Nos. 1099 & 1100/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Garden Reach Ship Builders & Engineers Ltd..............................………………..Appellant 43/46, Garden Reach Road, Kolkata – 700 024. [Pan: Aacg 9371 K] Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Incomes Tax, Kolkata – 1, Kolkata ……………………………Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. Appearances By: Shri Sanjoy Bhattacharya, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 17, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order November 20, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy: Am Both These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata - 1, Kolkata Passed U/S 263 Of The Act 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 21.03.2018. As The Issues Arising In Both The Appeals Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘C’ KOLKATA [BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. MADHUMITA ROY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER] [THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT] I.T.A. Nos. 1099 & 1100/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s. Garden Reach Ship Builders & Engineers Ltd..............................………………..Appellant 43/46, Garden Reach Road, Kolkata – 700 024. [PAN: AACG 9371 K] VS. Pr. Commissioner of Incomes Tax, Kolkata – 1, Kolkata ……………………………Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. Appearances by: Shri Sanjoy Bhattacharya, Advocate appearing on behalf of th…