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.

Afcons Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT 9, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 3159/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3159/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) Afcons Infrastructure Limited Pr. Cit-9 16, Afcons House Room No.214, Aaykar Bhavan बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, M.K. Road Shah Industrial Estate Vs. Veera Desai Road, Andheri West Mumbai. Mumbai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaca-9067-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : S/Shri J.D. Mistry & Nitesh Joshi-Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Anadi Varma-Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 05/09/2019 & 19/12/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 17/03/2020 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: S/Shri J.D. Mistry & Nitesh Joshi-Ld. ArsFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma-Ld.CIT-DR
Section 263

…ed 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 judgement titled as CIT V/s Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282). Similar principal has been followed 3 Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Assessment Year-2014-15 by jurisdictional High Court in Grasim Industries Ltd. V/s CIT (321 ITR 92). 1.2 The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s Vikas Polymers (supra), further observed that as regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", Hon’ble Bombay High Court i…

Ksm Securities & Finance P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2980/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negiksm Securities & Finance Vs. Cit-1 3Rd Floor, Room No.387 Private Limited 2Nd Floor, National Insurance Aaykar Bhawan Building, 204, D.N.Road M.K.Road Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 68

…ommissioner directing the Ld. AO to enquiry into capacity of donors and to decide about genuineness of the gift was not sustainable. This legal principle is further supported by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of CIT vs Max India Ltd.(2007) 295 ITR 282, where it was held that where, two views inherently possible and when, one view had to be taken into account by considering position of law, as it stood on day, when the commissioner passed order in purportedly exercises of his power u/s 263 of the Act, then view taken by the Ld. AO cannot be called erroneous and the Ld.CIT is incorrect in assumi…

Kusumlata Sonthalia, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT, Central - 1, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1112/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं/I.T.A No.1112/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Kusumlata Sonthalia Vs. Pcit, Central-1, Kolkata. 34, Pankaj Mallick Sarani, Jayantika Apartment, 1St Floor, Ballygunge, Kolkata – 700019. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abbpa8446Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Nirav Shesth, Aca Respondent By : Shri Ram Bilash Meena, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13/02/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12 Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-1, Kolkata’S Order Dated 28.02.2019 Involving Proceedings U/S 153A/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. Coming To The Basic Relevant Facts, We Notice That The Pcit’S Action Under Challenge Has Assumed Revision Jurisdiction Vested U/S 263 Of The Act To Hold The Regular Assessment In Question Framed In Assessee’S Case On 30.12.2016 As An Erroneous One Causing Prejudice To Interest Of The Revenue On The Ground That The Assessing Officer Had Failed To Carry Out Factual Verification/Necessary Enquires/Investigation Regarding The Tax-Payer’S Long Term Capital Losses Of Rs.156075/- & Gains Of Rs.13010/- As Per Stamp Duty Valuation(S) Of Rs.1465454/-And Rs.1353454/-; Respectively. He Thus Sought To Invoke Section

For Appellant: Shri Nirav Shesth, ACAFor Respondent: Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT
Section 14ASection 153ASection 263

…cts in holding the Assessing Officer’s assessment in question to be an erroneous one causing prejudice to interest of the Revenue; simultaneously, as held in hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in Malabar Industries Co. 243 ITR 83(SC) and Max India vs. CIT 295 ITR 282. We therefore I.T.A No.1112/Kol/2019 Kusumlata Sonthalia reverse the PCIT’s revision directions for this reason alone. The Assessing Officer’s assessment dated 30.12.2016 stands restored as a necessary corollary. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 28.02.2020. (P. M. Jagtap) (S. S. Godara) VICE-PRESI…

Smt. Seema Agarwal, Kolkata vs. DCIT, C.C. - 2(3), Kolkata

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1185/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Rajnish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- B/4, 10Th Floor, Satyam 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. Tower, 3,Alipore Road, Poorva, 110, Shanti Kolkata-700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acspa 8482 C] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Manish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- Flat-17, 14, Satyam Tower, 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. 3,Alipore Road, Kolkata- Poorva, 110, Shanti 700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acvpa 7357 F] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15

Section 263

…locus standi at this pre-mature stage. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contentions. We make it clear that hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in Malabar Industries Co. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83(SC), CIT vs. Max India Limited [2007] 295 ITR 282(SC) and CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (2017) 395 ITR 1(SC) settle the legal position regarding invocation of section 263 revision jurisdiction that an assessment has to be both erroneous as well as causing prejudice to interest of the Revenue; simultaneously, before the CIT or the PCIT, sets in motion the impugned mechanism. And also th…

Smt. Puja Agarwal, Kolkata vs. DCIT, C.C. - 2(3), Kolkata

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1184/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Rajnish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- B/4, 10Th Floor, Satyam 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. Tower, 3,Alipore Road, Poorva, 110, Shanti Kolkata-700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acspa 8482 C] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Manish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- Flat-17, 14, Satyam Tower, 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. 3,Alipore Road, Kolkata- Poorva, 110, Shanti 700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acvpa 7357 F] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15

Section 263

…locus standi at this pre-mature stage. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contentions. We make it clear that hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in Malabar Industries Co. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83(SC), CIT vs. Max India Limited [2007] 295 ITR 282(SC) and CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (2017) 395 ITR 1(SC) settle the legal position regarding invocation of section 263 revision jurisdiction that an assessment has to be both erroneous as well as causing prejudice to interest of the Revenue; simultaneously, before the CIT or the PCIT, sets in motion the impugned mechanism. And also th…

Smt. Shalini Agarwal, Kolkata vs. DCIT, C.C. - 2(3), Kolkata

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1183/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Rajnish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- B/4, 10Th Floor, Satyam 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. Tower, 3,Alipore Road, Poorva, 110, Shanti Kolkata-700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acspa 8482 C] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Manish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- Flat-17, 14, Satyam Tower, 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. 3,Alipore Road, Kolkata- Poorva, 110, Shanti 700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acvpa 7357 F] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15

Section 263

…locus standi at this pre-mature stage. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contentions. We make it clear that hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in Malabar Industries Co. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83(SC), CIT vs. Max India Limited [2007] 295 ITR 282(SC) and CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (2017) 395 ITR 1(SC) settle the legal position regarding invocation of section 263 revision jurisdiction that an assessment has to be both erroneous as well as causing prejudice to interest of the Revenue; simultaneously, before the CIT or the PCIT, sets in motion the impugned mechanism. And also th…

Shri Suresh Agarwal, Kolkata vs. DCIT, C.C. - 2(3), Kolkata

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1182/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Rajnish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- B/4, 10Th Floor, Satyam 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. Tower, 3,Alipore Road, Poorva, 110, Shanti Kolkata-700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acspa 8482 C] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Manish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- Flat-17, 14, Satyam Tower, 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. 3,Alipore Road, Kolkata- Poorva, 110, Shanti 700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acvpa 7357 F] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15

Section 263

…locus standi at this pre-mature stage. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contentions. We make it clear that hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in Malabar Industries Co. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83(SC), CIT vs. Max India Limited [2007] 295 ITR 282(SC) and CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (2017) 395 ITR 1(SC) settle the legal position regarding invocation of section 263 revision jurisdiction that an assessment has to be both erroneous as well as causing prejudice to interest of the Revenue; simultaneously, before the CIT or the PCIT, sets in motion the impugned mechanism. And also th…

Smt. Mridul Agarwal, Kolkata vs. DCIT, C.C. - 2(3), Kolkata

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1181/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Rajnish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- B/4, 10Th Floor, Satyam 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. Tower, 3,Alipore Road, Poorva, 110, Shanti Kolkata-700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acspa 8482 C] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Manish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- Flat-17, 14, Satyam Tower, 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. 3,Alipore Road, Kolkata- Poorva, 110, Shanti 700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acvpa 7357 F] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15

Section 263

…locus standi at this pre-mature stage. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contentions. We make it clear that hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in Malabar Industries Co. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83(SC), CIT vs. Max India Limited [2007] 295 ITR 282(SC) and CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (2017) 395 ITR 1(SC) settle the legal position regarding invocation of section 263 revision jurisdiction that an assessment has to be both erroneous as well as causing prejudice to interest of the Revenue; simultaneously, before the CIT or the PCIT, sets in motion the impugned mechanism. And also th…

Smt. Seema Agarwal, Kolkata vs. DCIT, C.C.- 2(3), Kolkata

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1180/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Rajnish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- B/4, 10Th Floor, Satyam 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. Tower, 3,Alipore Road, Poorva, 110, Shanti Kolkata-700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acspa 8482 C] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Manish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- Flat-17, 14, Satyam Tower, 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. 3,Alipore Road, Kolkata- Poorva, 110, Shanti 700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acvpa 7357 F] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15

Section 263

…locus standi at this pre-mature stage. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contentions. We make it clear that hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in Malabar Industries Co. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83(SC), CIT vs. Max India Limited [2007] 295 ITR 282(SC) and CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (2017) 395 ITR 1(SC) settle the legal position regarding invocation of section 263 revision jurisdiction that an assessment has to be both erroneous as well as causing prejudice to interest of the Revenue; simultaneously, before the CIT or the PCIT, sets in motion the impugned mechanism. And also th…

Shri Ramesh Agarwal, Kolkata vs. DCIT, C.C. - 2(3), Kolkata

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1179/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Rajnish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- B/4, 10Th Floor, Satyam 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. Tower, 3,Alipore Road, Poorva, 110, Shanti Kolkata-700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acspa 8482 C] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Manish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- Flat-17, 14, Satyam Tower, 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. 3,Alipore Road, Kolkata- Poorva, 110, Shanti 700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acvpa 7357 F] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15

Section 263

…locus standi at this pre-mature stage. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contentions. We make it clear that hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in Malabar Industries Co. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83(SC), CIT vs. Max India Limited [2007] 295 ITR 282(SC) and CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (2017) 395 ITR 1(SC) settle the legal position regarding invocation of section 263 revision jurisdiction that an assessment has to be both erroneous as well as causing prejudice to interest of the Revenue; simultaneously, before the CIT or the PCIT, sets in motion the impugned mechanism. And also th…

Shri Manish Agarwal, Kolkata vs. DCIT, C.C. - 2(3), Kolkata

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1178/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Rajnish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- B/4, 10Th Floor, Satyam 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. Tower, 3,Alipore Road, Poorva, 110, Shanti Kolkata-700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acspa 8482 C] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Manish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- Flat-17, 14, Satyam Tower, 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. 3,Alipore Road, Kolkata- Poorva, 110, Shanti 700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acvpa 7357 F] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15

Section 263

…locus standi at this pre-mature stage. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contentions. We make it clear that hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in Malabar Industries Co. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83(SC), CIT vs. Max India Limited [2007] 295 ITR 282(SC) and CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (2017) 395 ITR 1(SC) settle the legal position regarding invocation of section 263 revision jurisdiction that an assessment has to be both erroneous as well as causing prejudice to interest of the Revenue; simultaneously, before the CIT or the PCIT, sets in motion the impugned mechanism. And also th…

Shri Rajnish Agarwal, Kolkata vs. DCIT, C.C. - 2(3), Kolkata

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1177/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Rajnish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- B/4, 10Th Floor, Satyam 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. Tower, 3,Alipore Road, Poorva, 110, Shanti Kolkata-700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acspa 8482 C] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Manish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- Flat-17, 14, Satyam Tower, 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. 3,Alipore Road, Kolkata- Poorva, 110, Shanti 700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acvpa 7357 F] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15

Section 263

…locus standi at this pre-mature stage. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contentions. We make it clear that hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in Malabar Industries Co. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83(SC), CIT vs. Max India Limited [2007] 295 ITR 282(SC) and CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (2017) 395 ITR 1(SC) settle the legal position regarding invocation of section 263 revision jurisdiction that an assessment has to be both erroneous as well as causing prejudice to interest of the Revenue; simultaneously, before the CIT or the PCIT, sets in motion the impugned mechanism. And also th…

Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT, Central - 1, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1150/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं/I.T.A No.1150/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia Vs. Pcit, Central-1, Kolkata. 34, Pankaj Mallick Sarani, Jayantika Apartment, 1St Floor, Ballygunge, Kolkata – 700019. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahfps8270A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Nirav Shesth, Aca Respondent By : Shri Ram Bilash Meena, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 30/12/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-1, Kolkata’S Order Dated 15.01.2018 Involving Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. Coming To The Basic Relevant Facts, We Notice That The Pcit’S Revision Directions/Order Under Challenge Dated 15.01.2018 Have Assumed Jurisdiction Vested U/S 263 Of The Act To Hold The Regular Assessment In Question Dated 30.12.2016 As An Erroneous One Causing Prejudice To Interest Of The Revenue On The Ground That The Assessing Officer Had Failed To Carry Out Necessary Factual Enquires/Investigation Regarding The Tax-Payer’S Deduction Claim Raised U/S 54 R.W.

For Appellant: Shri Nirav Shesth, ACAFor Respondent: Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT
Section 14ASection 153ASection 263Section 54Section 54F

…cts in holding the Assessing Officer’s assessment in question to be an erroneous one causing prejudice to interest of the Revenue; simultaneously, as held in hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in Malabar Industries Co. 243 ITR 83(SC) and Max India vs. CIT 295 ITR 282. We therefore reverse the PCIT’s revision directions for this reason alone. The Assessing I.T.A No.1150/Kol/2018 Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia Officer’s assessment in question dated 30.12.2016 stands restored as a necessary corollary. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 28.02.2020. (A. L. Saini) JUDICIAL ME…

Yogesh Mavjibhai Gala, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT- 25, Mumbai

ITA 3373/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodyogesh Mavjibhai Gala Pr.Commissioner Of Income 401, Bhanu Kunj, 43, Tax-25, 401/C-10, 4Th Floor, Swastik Society, N.S. Road No.3, Pratyaksha Bhavan, Bandra Vs. Vile Parle (West), Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 056 Mumbai, Maharashtra 400 051

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal &For Respondent: Shri Anupama D.Shukla, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

…plausible view, then the CIT was precluded from exercising his revisional jurisdiction under Sec. 263 of the Act, reliance was placed by the ld. A.R on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT (Central), Ludhiana Vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). Also, in order to support his claim that no infirmity did arise from the allowing of the assesse‟s claim for deduction under Sec. 54 of the Act, the ld. A.R relied on the order of the ITAT, Mumbai „D‟ bench in the case of Richa Bagrodia Vs. DCIT-12(3), Mumbai (2019) 175 ITD 552 (Mum) and ITAT, Mumbai „F‟ Bench, Mumbai in the case of ACIT vs…

Rampuria Industries & Investments Ltd., Kolkata vs. Principal CIT, Central - 1, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 651/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2020AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 43(5)(d)

…(2003) 263 ITR 255 Stainless Steel P. LTd. (SC) (2003) 263 ITR 255 Stainless Steel P. LTd. (SC) (2003) 263 ITR 255  CIT vs. Greenworld Corporation (SC) (2009) 314 IR 81 CIT vs. Greenworld Corporation (SC) (2009) 314 IR 81  CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (SC) (2007) 295 ITR 282 CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (SC) (2007) 295 ITR 282  Medicare TPA Service (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT Medicare TPA Service (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT 5. The ld. D/R, Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT, submitted that the A The ld. D/R, Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT, submitted that the Assessing Officer has not ssessing Officer has not called for any records and examined t…

Sleek International, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 32(3), Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 3327/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Mehta & Govind Jhaveri-For Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar - Ld.CIT-DR
Section 263

…d as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests 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 judgement 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). 3 M/s. Sleek International Assessment Year :2014-15 1.2 The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, CIT V/s Vikas Polymers (supra), further observed that as regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", Hon’ble Bombay High Court in C…

Kritika Wires Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.C.I.T.-2, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 709/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 263

…) Duggal 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. vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) - CIT vs.Max India Ltd. 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)] - CIT vs. Kwalaity Steel Suppliers Complex 395 ITR - CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan 384 ITR 200 (SC) - CIT vs. Hindustan Lever Ltd. 343 ITR 161 (Bom) - CIT vs. Vikas Plymers 341 ITR 537 (Del) - CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd 332 ITR 167 (Del) - CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd 323 ITR 206 (Bom) - Vimgi Investment (P) td 290 ITR 5050 (Del) - Hari Iro…

Smt. Ranjana Sharma (Sikhwal), Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 32(4), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1157/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 263Section 54F

…us assessment causing prejudice to the interest of Revenue. We make it clear that hon'ble’s apex court’s landmark decision 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) has settled the law long back that the foregoing twin conditions must / simultaneously co-exist before revision direction jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act is assumed. We accordingly reverse the PCIT’s revision directions under challenge and restore regular assessment dated 20.01.2016 accepting the assessee’s sec. 54F deduction to this effect.…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad vs. Nmdc Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1022/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri Laxmi Niwas SharmaFor Respondent: Smt. T.H. Vijaya Laxmi, DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 80I

…provisions of section 263 as we find that the issue is debatable and when two views are possible the AO has taken one view. The Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 243 ITR 83 as well as CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. reported in 295 ITR 282 has held that when there are two views possible and the AO has taken one view, the order of the AO cannot be considered as erroneous and hence the CIT cannot exercise revisional power u/s 263. As pointed out above, the provisions for an accrued existing liability, even though, the actual expenditure may take place at a later date, is an allowable…

Tata Aig General Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 3371/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaita No.3371 & 3372/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years:2013-14 & 2014-15) Tata Aig General Insurance Vs. Pr.Cit-8, Room No. 611, Company Limited Aayakar Bhawan, 15Th Floor, Tower-A, Penisula M.K.Road, Business Park, G.K.Marg, Mumbai-400020. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No.Aabct3518Q Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee By Sh. F.V.Irani Senior Advocate With Miss Pratiksha Advocate & Sh Ashish Thakar Ca Revenue By Sh. Manjunatha Swamy Cit-Dr & Sh Micheal Jarald Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 31/01/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 05/02/2020 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Pawan Singh(Jm): 1. These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pcit)–28, Mumbai, Passed Under Section 263, Dated 30/03/2019 For Ay 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2. In Both The Appeals, The Assessee Has Raised Identical Grounds Of Appeal; Facts For Both The Years Are Identical Except Variation Of Certain Figures Of Claim Under Different Claims. Therefore, Both The Appeals Were Clubbed, Heard & Are Decided By Consolidated Order. For Appreciation Of Facts, The Appeal For Ay

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3371 & 3372/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years:2013-14 & 2014-15) Tata AIG General Insurance Vs. Pr.CIT-8, Room No. 611, Company Limited Aayakar Bhawan, 15th Floor, Tower-A, Penisula M.K.Road, Business Park, G.K.Marg, Mumbai-400020. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 PAN/GIR No.AABCT3518Q Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by Sh. F.V.Irani Senior Advocate with Miss Pratiksha Advocate & Sh Ashish Thakar CA Revenue by Sh. Manjunatha Swamy CIT-DR And Sh Micheal Jarald Sr DR Date of Hear…