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 367,181 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 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.

M/S. G Crop Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 1017/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessmentyear: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri J.K. Kamdar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 263

…les relating to initiation of revision proceedings has been explained by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries Company Ltd. Vs. CIT (243 ITR 83) and the same has been reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282). For the sake of convenience, we extract below the operative portion of the order passed by Hon’ble “Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 empowers the Commissioner to call for and examine the record of any proceedings under the Act and, if he considers that any order passed therein, by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is pr…

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

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

ITA/423/2013HC Karnataka16 Sept 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 14ASection 260Section 260ASection 263Section 3

…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. 8 8. In the backdrop of aforesaid well settled legal principles, we may examine the facts of the case in hand. In ‘CIT VS. SUNBEAM AUTO LTD.’, 332 ITR 167, it has been held by Delhi High C…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Aztec Software Technology Ltd

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

ITA/348/2013HC Karnataka16 Sept 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 260Section 260ASection 263

…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. 8. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law, the facts of the case may be seen. The assessee is engaged in the business of computer software development and services. The expenditure incurred in foreign…

M/S. Green Touch Vincom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Central - 1, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1028/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ming sec.263 revision jurisdiction. Case file perused. There can hardly be any dispute about the settled legal proposition in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Max India (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) that before an assessment is held as erroneous causing prejudice to interest of the Revenue, both these conditions have to be simultaneously satisfied. And that an assessment cannot be treated as an erroneous one causing prejudice to interest of the Revenue in case the Assessing Officer has taken one of the possible views. We keep in mind th…

DCIT 9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Future Ideas Company Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 3400/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Samatha Mullamudi, DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 57

…r the order of assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. In coming to this view, we draw support from, inter alia, the decisions of the Hon'ble Courts in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (243 ITR 83) (SC), CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282) (SC) and Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) P. Ltd. (323 ITR 632) (Bom). In this factual and legal matrix of the case and considering the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that since the AO has come to a finding and taken a possible view in the matter after application of mind, the conditions precedent for the learned C…

M/S. Vision Habitate & Services Pvt. Ltd., Sambalpur vs. Pr. CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 214/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.214/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Vision Habitate & Services Vs. Pr. Cit, Sambalpur-768004 Private Limited, Kadambari Complex, Gole Bazar, Sambalpur-768001 Pan No. : Aadcn 4768 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.N.Agrawal/Binod Agrawal, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/08/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, Dated 30.03.2019 For The A.Y.2014-2015 On The Following Grounds :- 1. That The Order U/S. 263 Is Bad In Law As Well As In Facts. 2. That The Order U/S. 263, Stated To Have Been Passed On 30.03.2019, Is Ante Dated & Barred By Limitation, Being Issued & Served Upon The Appellant On 30.04.2019, Which Is After The Expiry Of Period Of Limitation On 31.03.2019. 3. That The Assessment Order Dt.29.12.2016 Making An Addition Of Rs.27,51,100 To The Returned Income U/S.56(2)(Viib) Consequent Upon Valuation Of Book Value Of 4,510 Nos. Of Equity Shares @ Rs.739 Per Share As On 31.03.2013 Allotted On 31.03.2014 @ Rs.1,349 Per Share. Thus, The Difference Of Rs.610 Per Share Multiplied By 4,510 Nos. Of Shares Allotted Coming To Rs.27,51,100 Has Been Added As Above By The Id. Ao. The Said Valuation & The Consequential Addition Has Been Disputed By The Appellant In The Appeal In Form No.35 E-Filed Before The Id.

For Appellant: Shri B.N.Agrawal/Binod AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 56(2)(viib)

…chnology Ltd. vs. CIT (2004) 271 ITR 15 (Delhi). 7. That the in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order u/s. 263 based upon mere change of opinion or possibility of a second view is not sustainable in law vide CIT v. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC). 8. That the Id. Pr. CIT is not justified in not accepting the written submission of the Appellant as stated in para 22 of the impugned order on grounds stated in para 23, which are prima facie illogical. 9. That the impugned order u/s. 263 is devoid of any specific error commit…

Vodafone India Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3327/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shriramlal Negi, Jm Vodafone India Ltd., Principal Commissioner Of Income Peninsula Corporate Park, Tax-8, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Room No. 611, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Parel, Mumbai-400013. Road, Mumbai, Maharastra, Pin- 400020. Pan: Aaach 5332 B Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 263Section 32(1)Section 35ASection 37

…1. CIT vs AmritlalBhogilal& Co. 34 ITR 130 (SC) 2. CIT vs Smt. AnnapoornammaChandershekhar (2012) 17 Taxman. Com 120 (Karnataka H.C.) 3. Gabriel India Limited, 203 ITR 108 (Bombay H.C.) 4. CIT vs Nirav Modi, 390 ITR 292 (Bombay H.C.) 5. CIT vs Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC) 6. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) 7. CIT vs Vodafone Essar South Ltd., 212 Taxman 184 (Delhi H.C. – affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CC 9308/2013) 8. CIT vs Vodafone Essar South Ltd. (CC 9308/2012 – SC) 8. As per the ld. AR of the assesse the learned PCIT erred in concluding that depreciation amounting to INR 447…

The Director of Income Tax vs. India Heritage Foundation

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/382/2012HC Karnataka18 Aug 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 260Section 260ASection 263Section 80I

…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. The seminal question, which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether on the anvil of aforesaid well settled principles of law, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal can be sustained…

Goldmohur Design and Apparel Park Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. Comm. of Income Tax - 7, Mumbai

ITA 3971/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodgoldmohar Design & Pr. Cit-7 R. No. 628, 6Th Floor, Apparel Park Ltd. 145, Goldmohar Mill, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Dada Saheb Phalke Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Dadar (E), Mumbai- 400 014 Pan – Aadcg1613M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri. T. Kipgen &

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

…tions are mandatorily required to be cumulatively satisfied, reliance has been placed by the ld. A.R on the judgements of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). Also, support was drawn by him from the judgments of the Hon‘ble High Court of Bombay in the case of viz. (i) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom); (ii) Goldmohar Desine and Apparel Park Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT-7 20 ITA No.3971/Mum/2017 A.Y 2012-13 Grasim Industry Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom); (iii) CIT Vs. LIC Housing Fin…

Padam Kumae Jain, Ranchi vs. CIT, Central, Patna

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

ITA 289/RAN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.289/Ran/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Padam Kumar Jain Vs. Cit, Central, Cr Building, Beer Chand Patel Marg, Patna – 800001. Ratanlalsurajmal Compound, Main Road, Ranchi – 834001, Jharkhand "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abrpj 0001 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Chaudhury & Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Inderjeet Singh, CIT (DR)

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

….O., which is not permissible. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of RankaJewellers vs. Addl. CIT (328 ITR 148) relying on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd. [(2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC)], has held that once the issue was considered by the A.O., the remedy of the revenue could not lie in invoking of the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act. Therefore, the order of the Ld. C.I.T. was definitely outside the purview of section 263 of the Act. As noted above, the exercise aimed at ascertaining the correct income of the assessee has…

Gouri Shankar Goyal, Siliguri vs. I.T.O.Ward-1(3), Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 517/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.517/Kol/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2014-15) Gouri Shankar Goyal Vs. Pcit, Siliguri

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 263

…a loss of revenue, it cannot be treated as erroneous order Gouri Shankar Goyal Assessment Year:2014-15 prejudicial to the interest of revenue, unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is completely unsustainable in law.’ CIT vs. Max India Limited [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) If the Assessing Officer allows the claim on being satisfied with the explanation of assessee, on an enquiry made during the course of Assessment proceedings, the decision of Assessing Officer cannot be held to be erroneous, on ground that there is no elaborate discussion in that regard in the order. It is the practice, that whenever any cla…

Meena Agency Ltd., Jamnagar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar-Gujarat

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 43/RJT/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.N. Maurya, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 153(5)Section 263Section 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT Before: Shri Waseem Ahmad, Accountant Member and Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2015-16 Meena Agency Ltd. The Principal CIT, Khusboowadi, Jamnagar Gurudwara, Vs (Respondent) Jamnagar-361008 PAN: AABCM4325Q (Appellant) Revenue by: Shri M.N. Maurya, CIT-D.R. Assessee by: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. Date of hearing : 28-02-2020 Date of pronouncement : 02-06-2020 आदेश/ORDER PER BENCH:- This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2015-16, arises from order of the Principal CIT, Jamnagar dated 04-02-2020, in proceedings under section 263 of the…

M/S. Sanee Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal vs. The Pr CIT, Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 742/IND/2018[15-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Jun 2020

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Sanee Infrastructure Pr.Cit-2, Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Bhopal D-1, Machna Colony, 6 No Bus Stop, Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Aagcs8307M Appellant By Shri Arun Jain, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit Date Of Hearing 12.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 01.06.2020 O R D E R

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

…l 23 ITANo.742/Ind/2018 authority. This is a course of action that must be desisted from. However, the above is not the situation in the present case in view of the reasons stated by the learned CIT on the 3(2000) 243 ITR 83 (Hon'ble Supreme Court) 4 (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) 22 basis of which the said authority felt that the matter needed further investigation, a view with which we wholly agree. Making a claim which would prima facie disclose that the expenses in respect of which deduction has been claimed has been incurred and thereafter abandoning/ withdrawing the same gives rise to the necessity of further en…

Tata Sons Private Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1091/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit 2, 24, Bombay House, Room No.552, Homi Mody Street, Vs. 5Th Floor, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaact4060A M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, A.R. Ms. Arati Vissanji, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.04.2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 57

…atter and the AO has adopted one such view, then revisionary proceedings under Section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked merely because the Commissioner wishes to adopt another view. In this regard, reliance is placed on the following decisions: Max India Ltd (295 ITR 282) (SC); Greenworld Corporation (314 ITR 81) (SC); 10 M/s. Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (395 ITR 1) (SC); and LIC Housing Finance Ltd (367 ITR 458) (Bom HC). 10. It is submitted that recently, in Assessee's own case for AY 2012-13 (ITA No 1213/Mum/2018), the Mumbai Tribunal has quashed the order passed by the Commissioner un…

Laxmi Ventures (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-2014

ITA 2199/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Laxmi Ventures (India) Pvt. The Principal Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax 7, Mumbai, Aaykar 36/40, Mahalaxmi Bridge Arcade Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mahalaxmi , Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400034 Pan: Aaacl1082G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajiv Harit (CIT DR)

Section 133Section 143Section 14ASection 263Section 40Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s Laxmi Ventures (India) Pvt. The Principal Commissioner of Ltd., Income Tax 7, Mumbai, Aaykar 36/40, Mahalaxmi Bridge Arcade Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mahalaxmi , Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400034 PAN: AAACL1082G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Haridas Bhat (AR) Revenue by : Shri Rajiv Harit (CIT DR) Date of Hearing: 05/03/2020 Date of Pronouncement: 20/04/2020 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dat…

Dr. Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The DCIT Cir. 2(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…are Consultants 341 ITR 240 (Del.) b. CIT v/s. Anil Corporation 213 Taxmann 19 c. CIT v/s. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del.) d. CIT v/s. Makal Suta Cotton Co. P. Ltd. 275 ITR 54(M.P) e. CIT v/s R.K. Construction Co., 313 ITR 65 (Guj.) f. CIT v/s Max India, 295 ITR 282 (SC) g. CIT v/s Ratlam Coal Ash Co., 171 ITR 141 (M.P) h. CIT v/s Arvind Jewellers, 259 ITR 502 (Guj.) i. CIT v/s Vodafone Essar South Ltd, 212 Taxmann 184 (Del.) j. CIT v/s Mehrotra Brothers, 270 ITR 157 (M.P) k. CIT v/s Shri Govindram Seksariya Cahrity Trust, 166 ITR 580 (M.P) l. Hari Iron Trading Co. v/s CIT, 263 ITR 437 (P&H) m. CIT v/s HARI…

Dr. Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The ACIT Cir. 2(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 66/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

M/S. Bhandari Hospital and Research Centre, Indore vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Indore

ITA 355/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Bhandari Hospital & Pr. Cit-(I) Research Centre, Gf-21 & Indore बनाम/ 22, Opp. Meghdoot Garden, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aadfb8151A

Section 131(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263Section 35A

…are Consultants 341 ITR 240 (Del.) b. CIT v/s. Anil Corporation 213 Taxmann 19 c. CIT v/s. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del.) d. CIT v/s. Makal Suta Cotton Co. P. Ltd. 275 ITR 54(M.P) e. CIT v/s R.K. Construction Co., 313 ITR 65 (Guj.) f. CIT v/s Max India, 295 ITR 282 (SC) g. CIT v/s Ratlam Coal Ash Co., 171 ITR 141 (M.P) h. CIT v/s Arvind Jewellers, 259 ITR 502 (Guj.) i. CIT v/s Vodafone Essar South Ltd, 212 Taxmann 184 (Del.) j. CIT v/s Shri Govindram Seksariya Cahrity Trust, 166 ITR 580 (M.P) k. Hari Iron Trading Co. v/s CIT, 263 ITR 437 (P&H) l. CIT v/s HARI Singh & Associates, 267 CTR 442 (Raj.) m. 335 I…

Shri Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The Pr.CIT-1, Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 350/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

Skan Enterprise, Kolkata vs. Pr.C.I.T.-12, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 840/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 263

…vs. Income-tax Officer, Business Ward-XV(2)Chennai XV(2)Chennai [2018] 409 ITR 567 (Madras) [2018] 409 ITR 567 (Madras)  Commissioner of Income Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Ludhiana vs. Max India Ltd tax (Central), Ludhiana vs. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) 295 ITR 282 (SC) 5.3. On the issue of allowability of claim On the issue of allowability of claim of expenditure on commission payments of expenditure on commission payments. He relied on the following judgments of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court: judgments of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court: judgments of the Hon’ble Jurisdiction…