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.

Spirit Infrapower and Multiventures Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 8, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3081/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: S/shri V. Chandra Sekhar, Harshad Shah, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT,DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)

…therefore, the jurisdiction of the Pr.CIT to revise the said order under Sec. 263 was ousted, the Ld. A.R relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT Vs. Max India Limited (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). Also, reliance was placed by the Ld. A.R on the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Gabriel India Limited (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom). Further, the Ld. A.R in order to fortify his aforesaid contention had also relied on the order of the ITAT “D” Bench, Mumbai in the case of Shri Narayan Tatu Rane Vs. ITO Ward-27…

Smt. Kavita Dipesh Shah, Surat vs. The Pr. CIT-2, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 219/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.219/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Kavita Dipesh Shah, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 1, Vishal House, Next To Gautam Income-Tax- 2, Surat Market, Kamela Darwaja, Ring Road, Surat. [Pan: Anhps 4998 R] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri O.P. Singh, Cit(D.R.)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 57Section 8D

…it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law." 10. Following the aforesaid judgment, the Hon`ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282(SC) reiterated that the phrase "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" as used in section 263(1) of the Act must be read in conjunction with the expression "erroneous" and unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is found to be unsustainable in law, the powers under section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked. Kavita Dipesh Shah v. Pr.…

Shri Dipesh L. Shah, Surat vs. Pr. CIT-2, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 218/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.218/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Dipesh L Shah, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 1, Vishal House, Next To Gautam Income-Tax- 2, Surat Market, Kamela Darwaja, Ring Road Surat [Pan: Afsps 3839J] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri Prasenjit Singh, Cit(D.R.)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 57Section 8D

…it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law." 10. Following the aforesaid judgment, the Hon`ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282(SC) reiterated that the phrase Dipesh L Shah v. Pr. CIT-2 Surat /ITA No.218/SRT/2019 for A.Y. 2014-15 Page 14 of 15 "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" as used in section 263(1) of the Act must be read in conjunction with the expression "erroneous" and unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is found to be unsustainable in law,…

Ketan Ishwarlal Shah, Vapi vs. The Pr. CIT, Valsad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1496/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1496/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 Ketan Ishwarlal Shah, V Principal Commissioner Of Income 567,2797, Nehru Street, Near S. Tax, Hiten Studio, Vapi – 396192. Valsad. [Pan: Asmps 5062 Q] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Rajesh M.Upadhyay (Itp) राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri O.P.Singh – Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 24.10.2019 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 10.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per O.P.Meena, Am: 1. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax- Valsad [In Short “The Pr. Cit ”] Dated 27.03.2017 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2007-08 Passed Under Section 263 Of Income Tax Act,1961 ( In Short ‘The Act’).

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…, unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law." Ketan Ishwarlal Shah Vs. Ld.Pr.CIT, Valsad/ITA No.1496/AHD/2017 for A.Y. 2007-08 Page 9 of 11 9. Following the aforesaid judgment, the Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) reiterated that the phrase "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" as used in section 263(1) of the Act must be read in conjunction with the expression "erroneous" and unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is found to be unsustainable in law, the powers under section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked. 10. Non-Examination of is…

Supreme Auto, Na

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1141/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh&Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1141/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 बनाम M/S. Supreme Auto, Principal Commissioner Of Vs. Bilimora Road, National Income-Tax- Valsad Highway No.8, Samroli, At Chikhli, Navsari - 396521. [Pan: Aamfs 3499 K] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Prasenjit Singh, Cit(D.R.) राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By 22.10.2019 सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 10.12.2019 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax- Valsad [In Short “The Pr. Cit ”] Dated 22.03.2016 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12 Passed Under Section 263 Of Income Tax Act,1961 ( In Short ‘The Act’).

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

…e termed as erroneous. 8. In support of his contentions, the ld. Counsel for the assessee relying on plethora of decisions, including the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Limited (243 ITR 83); and CIT V/s. Max India Ltd. 2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC), CIT vs. Amit Corporation [2012] 81 CCH 69 (Guj. HC), CIT V. Arvind Jewellers [2003] 259 ITR 502 (Gujarat), CIT Vs. Nirav Modi [2016] 71 taxmann.com 272 (Bombay) Pr. CIT v. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. [ I.T.A.No. 705/2017 dtd.05.09.2017] of Hon`ble Delhi High Court, Pr. CIT v. Modicare Limited I.T.A.No. 759/2017 Delhi High Court, I…

M/S.Supras Metals Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(3)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1395/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1395/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…al Chordia (2003) 127 taxman 525 (Mad). With regard to one of the possible view taken by the AO, Ld. AR relied upon the following cases:- i) CIT vrs. V. Goetze 361 ITR 505 (Delhi HC) ii) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vrs. 243 ITR 83 (SC) iii) CIT vrs. Max India 295 ITR 282 (SC) 8. On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that even though AO has established that the whole loan transaction is not properly explained by the assessee and not established identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions, but AO restricted the addition only on closing balance of the loan. He further submitted that certain investi…

Invitrogen Bioservices India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Pr. CIT, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 868/BANG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai, Judical Member

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT,DR
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…view taken by income tax officer is unsustainable in law.” This principle which has been laid down in Malabar Industrial Co Ltd (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) has been followed and explained in a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT vs Max India Ltd (2007) 295 ITR 282.” In the present facts of the case, Ld.CIT has not analysed activities carried on by assessee under Bioinformatics division having regards to documents filed by assessee and Circular referred and relied upon ITA Nos.868 & 869(B)/2016 27 by assessee, as well as considered DRP order for assessment year 2010-11, on which reliance has been placed by…

Acc Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT(Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 977/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/wFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 263

…ken by the Assessing Officer on a particular issue one of the possible view, power under section 263 of the Act cannot be exercised. For this proposition, leaned Counsel for the assessee relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Max India Ltd., [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC); ii) CIT v/s Fine Jewellery India Ltd. [2015] 372 ITR 303 (Bom.); 19 ACC Limited iii) MOIL Ltd. v/s CIT, [2017] 396 ITR 244 (Bom.); iv) CIT v/s Ballarpur Industries Ltd., [2017] 85 taxmann.com 10 (Bom.); and v) PCIT v/s Mukesh Kimtani, ITA no.1038 of 2016, (Gom.). 20. Further, he submitted, while exercising powers under section 263 of the…

Addil Mohamadeliyas Kapadia, Surat vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Surat

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 430/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri O.P.Meena, Am

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263

…ble view on the facts and circumstances of the case, then Pr.CIT cannot exercise the 263 jurisdiction to impose his own view which may be a view possible to be taken in the very same facts of the case. The Hon`ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) reiterated that the phrase "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" as used in section 263(1) of the Act must be read in conjunction with the expression "erroneous" and unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is found to be unsustainable in law, the powers under section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked. The reasons for reopening…

Shree Ganesh Khand Udhyog, Bharuch vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), Bharuch

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 249/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri O.P.Meena, Am

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263

…ble view on the facts and circumstances of the case, then Pr.CIT cannot exercise the 263 jurisdiction to impose his own view which may be a view possible to be taken in the very same facts of the case. The Hon`ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) reiterated that the phrase "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" as used in section 263(1) of the Act must be read in conjunction with the expression "erroneous" and unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is found to be unsustainable in law, the powers under section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked. The reasons for reopening…

International Cargo Terminals & Rail Infrastructure Private Limited (Formerly Known As Boxtrans Logistrics (India) Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-1, Mumbai

ITA 1637/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1637/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, AR byFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ated 16.03.2016 passed by him under section 143(3) of the Act was the correct view. In the least, this represented a possible view, which could not have been held to be erroneous, in view of judgement of the Hon ble Apex Court in CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 Section 41(1) has no application to the present case (g) As stated above, before invoking the provision of section 41(1) of the Act, it was incumbent on the Revenue to show that the amount of Rs. 18.50 crore represented a trading liability and the Appellant had been allowed an allowance or deduction in respect of the same in computation of its…

Sai Enterprises, Thane vs. Pr. CIT- 2, Thane

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 3075/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3075/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sai Enterprises Pr. Cit-2 2Nd Floor, Rosa Vista Ashar I.T. Pak, “B” Wing बनाम/ 6Th Floor, Wagle Indl. Estate Opp. Suraj Water Park Vs. Ghodbunder Road, Thane(W) Thane(E), Maharashtra. Maharashtra. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaefs-0841-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh - Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 20/08/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 15/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1.1 As Per The Provisions Of Section 263 Of Income Tax Act, 1961, The Revenue Authorities Namely Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax / Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Vested With The Supervisory Powers Of Suo-Moto Revision Of Any Order Passed By The Assessing Officer [Ao]. For The Said Purpose, The Appropriate Authority May Call For & Examine

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh - Ld.Sr.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 by jurisdictional High Court in Grasim Industries Ltd. V/s CIT (321 ITR 92). 3 Sai Enterprises 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 CIT vs. Ga…

M/S. Oscar Investments Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 7, New Delhi

ITA 2823/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshram/S. Oscar Investments Ltd. Vs. Pr. Cit-7 54, Janpath, New Delhi. Connaught Place New Delhi 110 001 Pan Aaaco1722C (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT, DR
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 3Section 43B

…e considered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue in view of settled legal position by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide decisions in the cases of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT - (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd. - (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC), even if the Ld.CIT had different opinion in regard to the issue as compared to the view taken by the AO. 4. That the Ld.CIT also erred in observing that the Assessment Order was passed by the AO without making necessary and proper verification of claims u/s 14A made by the assessee and no proper enquiries have been conducted by the Assessin…

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 4, Coimbatore vs. Sri Balaji Real Estates, Pollachi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3148/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.397/Chny/2016, 2544, 2545 & 3148/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shir. S. Bharath, IRS, CIT
Section 139Section 147Section 148

…237 & :- 12 -: 1238/17, 2544 & 2545/18 Revenue. Ld. Authorised Representative Shri. D. Anand placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd, (2007) 295 ITR 282. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative 17. opposed the submissions made on behalf of the assessee. 18. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The only issue involved in the present appeal is whether or not the order of revision passed u/s.263 of the Act by the ld. PCIT is valid under law. Admittedly, the…

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 4, Coimbatore vs. Sri Balaji Real Estates, Pollachi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2545/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.397/Chny/2016, 2544, 2545 & 3148/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shir. S. Bharath, IRS, CIT
Section 139Section 147Section 148

…237 & :- 12 -: 1238/17, 2544 & 2545/18 Revenue. Ld. Authorised Representative Shri. D. Anand placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd, (2007) 295 ITR 282. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative 17. opposed the submissions made on behalf of the assessee. 18. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The only issue involved in the present appeal is whether or not the order of revision passed u/s.263 of the Act by the ld. PCIT is valid under law. Admittedly, the…

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 4, Coimbatore vs. Sri Balaji Real Estates, Pollachi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2544/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.397/Chny/2016, 2544, 2545 & 3148/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shir. S. Bharath, IRS, CIT
Section 139Section 147Section 148

…237 & :- 12 -: 1238/17, 2544 & 2545/18 Revenue. Ld. Authorised Representative Shri. D. Anand placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd, (2007) 295 ITR 282. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative 17. opposed the submissions made on behalf of the assessee. 18. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The only issue involved in the present appeal is whether or not the order of revision passed u/s.263 of the Act by the ld. PCIT is valid under law. Admittedly, the…

Sri Balaji Real Estates, Pollachi vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1238/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.397/Chny/2016, 2544, 2545 & 3148/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shir. S. Bharath, IRS, CIT
Section 139Section 147Section 148

…237 & :- 12 -: 1238/17, 2544 & 2545/18 Revenue. Ld. Authorised Representative Shri. D. Anand placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd, (2007) 295 ITR 282. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative 17. opposed the submissions made on behalf of the assessee. 18. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The only issue involved in the present appeal is whether or not the order of revision passed u/s.263 of the Act by the ld. PCIT is valid under law. Admittedly, the…

Sri Balaji Real Estates, Pollachi vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1237/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.397/Chny/2016, 2544, 2545 & 3148/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shir. S. Bharath, IRS, CIT
Section 139Section 147Section 148

…237 & :- 12 -: 1238/17, 2544 & 2545/18 Revenue. Ld. Authorised Representative Shri. D. Anand placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd, (2007) 295 ITR 282. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative 17. opposed the submissions made on behalf of the assessee. 18. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The only issue involved in the present appeal is whether or not the order of revision passed u/s.263 of the Act by the ld. PCIT is valid under law. Admittedly, the…

ACIT, Coimbatore vs. Sri Balaji Real Estates, Pollachi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 397/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.397/Chny/2016, 2544, 2545 & 3148/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shir. S. Bharath, IRS, CIT
Section 139Section 147Section 148

…237 & :- 12 -: 1238/17, 2544 & 2545/18 Revenue. Ld. Authorised Representative Shri. D. Anand placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd, (2007) 295 ITR 282. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative 17. opposed the submissions made on behalf of the assessee. 18. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The only issue involved in the present appeal is whether or not the order of revision passed u/s.263 of the Act by the ld. PCIT is valid under law. Admittedly, the…

Blue Star Ltd., Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1941/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri N.S. Jangpangi – Ld. 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). 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 3 Blue Star Ltd Assessment Year :2013-14 "erroneous", Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabr…