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.

Reenaz Properties P. Ltd, Edapally, Kochi vs. The Pr CIT, Kochi

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

ITA 137/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.R.KrishnanFor Respondent: Sri.Sudhanshu Shekar Jha

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43CSection 50C

…r capital gain tax. According to the assessee, the Assessing Officer has taken a possible view and issuance of notice u/s 263 of the I.T.Act is bad in law. The assessee relied on the judgments of the of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of (i) Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282, (ii) Anal Housing & Construction Ltd. 51 taxmann.com 376, and (iii) Malabar Industrial Company Ltd.109 taxmann.com 66. 5. The objections raised by the assessee was rejected by the CIT. The CIT after reproducing the provisions of section 43CA of the I.T.Act, held that the said provision is applicable for the relevant assessment year and the Asses…

City and Industrial Development Corportaion of Maharashtra Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 15, Mumbai

ITA 2840/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S. E. Dastur, SrFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson, DR

Section 10Section 113Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 263Section 40

…essee after omission of section 10(20A) is taxable w.e.f. A.Y. 2003-04. 8. Further, Pr. CIT rejected the citation of the various decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court i.e. in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd vs. CIT 243 ITR 81 and CIT vs Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282. Further, he observed that only one view is possible and that is the acts of the assessee company are not the acts of the State and therefore, the income of the assessee 8 I.T.A. No. 2840/Mum/2019 M/s City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. company like any other company must be subject to the provisions of the Income Tax…

Abdullabhai Hasanali Through L/H Zohrabai, Nagpur vs. A.C.I.T. Cir-3, Nagpur

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 318/NAG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Bhusari, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)

…2 (Bom.) (6) (a) The assessment order was earlier made u/s.143(3) after due scrutiny of records maintained by the assessee. The AO has adopted the possible view. (i) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) (ii) CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) (b) Section 10(38) is identical to section 10(33). Similar claim of allowing Long Term Capital Loss u/s. 10(38) on sale of listed shares have been allowed in the following cases :- (i) Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd., vs. DCIT (2015) 58 taxmann.com 115, Mumbai (ii) ACIT vs. Shri Somnath VaijanathSakre ITA No. 2605/Pune/2016 dated 8-3-19 (iii) Unit…

Abdullabhai Hasanali Through L/H Zohrabai, Nagpur vs. A.C.I.T. Cir-3, Nagpur

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 317/NAG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Bhusari, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)

Shri. Abdullabhai Hasanali, Nagpur vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, -II, Nagpur

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 621/NAG/2008[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 Oct 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Bhusari, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)

L.Paramasivam, Puducherry vs. ITO Ward 2, Puducherry

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1930/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1930/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs The Income Tax Officer, Shri L. Paramasivam, No.69C, Suthukeni Post, Pillaiyar Ward 2, Puducherry. Koil Street, Sandai Pudukuppam, Puducherry – 605 502. Pan: Agfpp9044F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

…nd hence, the direction issued by the PCIT is not in accordance with law. There was neither merit nor substance in his conclusion regarding the enquiry on the issues warranting action U/s.263. The ld.AR relied on various case laws viz., CIT v. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282 SC, CIT vs. Savera Industries Ltd., Tax case Appeal No.839 of 2016 dt. 11.01.2017 and CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., 203 ITR 108 (Bom. HC). 4. Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that the PCIT on examination of the impugned assessment records seen that  no turnover was reflected by the assessee either in the return of income or the statement accompany…

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1093/MUM/2018[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 State Bank Of India Principal Commissioner Of Financial Reporting & Vs. Income Tax-2, Mumbai. Taxation Department, 3Rd Floor , Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan No. Aaacs8577K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Percy J. Pardiwalla &For Respondent: Mr. B.B. Rajendra Prasad

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)(v)

…to 2014-15 and also for AY 1996-97. The AO passed an order allowing a deduction for the entire amount of provision towards bad and doubtful debts of Rs.833,30,47,694/- as a write off of bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act. 6.6 In CIT v. Max India Ltd., [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court referring to its own decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd (supra) has ruled thus: “At this stage we may clarify that under paragraph 10 of the judgment in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 this court has taken the view that the phrase “prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue” un…

Indglobal Network Support Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Mumbai

Accordingly grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5940/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5940/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi & MsFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson, DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)Section 56(2)(vijb)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5940/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Pr.CIT - 2, M/s Indglobal Network 3rd floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Support Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai 5th floor, AFL House, Lok बिधम/ Pin- Bharti Complex, Marol Vs. Maroshi Road, Andheri(east), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AABCI2069K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Nitesh Joshi & Ms. Sonakshi Jhunjhunwala, AR by प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Awangshi Gimson, DR सुनवाईकीता…

Smt. Malini Subramanian, Mysore vs. Pr. CIT, Mysore

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

ITA 935/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice Presidnet & Shri B.R Baskaranassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Shreehari Kutsa, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDNET AND SHRI B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2011-12 Smt. Malini Subramanian, Vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income- 965, Mahalakshmi, tax, JLB Road, Mysuru. Mysuru-570 004. PAN – AXMPS 5082 K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Shreehari Kutsa, C.A Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 26.09.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 27.09.2019 O R D E R Per B.R Baskaran, Accountant Member The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the revision order dated 24.03.2016 p…

DCIT, Circle-10(1) vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corp. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4432/DEL/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2019AY 2000-2001

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4432/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2000-01) I.T.A. No. 4433/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2001-02)

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 56

…decisions: a) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 b) DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation 357 ITR 388 (Del) c) ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Del) d) CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd. 360 ITR 44 (Del) e) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) f) CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. 333 ITR 547 HC (Del) g) CIT vs. Saluja Exim Ltd. 329 ITR 603 (P&H HC) h) Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CIT 32 ITR 92 (Bom HC) i) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 227 CTR 133 (Del HC) The Ld. AR further submitted that without prejudice to the earlier contentions, once the business had commenced and even if…

Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd, New Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1153/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4432/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2000-01) I.T.A. No. 4433/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2001-02)

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 56

DCIT, Circle-10(1) vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4433/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2019AY 2001-2002

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4432/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2000-01) I.T.A. No. 4433/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2001-02)

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 56

Rajan Gunba Telang, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 21, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2440/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Subhash S. ShettyFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54(1)Section 54(2)

…expressed by the Assessing Officer or entertains a different view, the assessment order cannot be considered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. In this context, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Max India Ltd., [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC); and ii) CIT v/s C.J. International Hotels Ltd., [2010] 325 ITR 313 (Del.). 7 Rajan Gumba Telang 5. The learned Authorised Representative submitted, since the Assessing Officer has decided the issue as per the law prevailing at the time of making the assessment, it cannot be considered to be erroneous. He submitted, the decision of the Hon…

Smt.Mithra Paul, Muvattupuzha vs. The ITO, WD-1, Thodupuzha

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

ITA 421/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 44ASection 69B

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM & GEORGE GEORGE K., JM I.T.A. No. 421/Coch/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Mithra Paul, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, 8/243, pottayil House, Thodupuzha. Mekkadambu P.O., Muvattupuzha-682 316. [PAN: ANGPP 7357Q]. (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessee by Shri Shantham Bose, CIT(DR) Revenue by Shri R. Sridhar, CA Date of hearing 28/08/2019 Date of pronouncement 20/09/2019 O R D E R Per CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Pr. CIT, Koc…

Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd., Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2047/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Laxmi Vara Prasad Gude , D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 41Section 41(1)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Ganesh Benzoplast Pr. CIT-1, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 1st Floor, Mumbai - 400020 Dina Bldg., 53, Vs. M.K. Road, Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 PAN: AAACG1259J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Haridas Bhat, C.A. Revenue by : Shri Laxmi Vara Prasad Gude , D.R. Date of Hearing : 15.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 11.09.2019 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the…

Ms Surbhi Agrawal, Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 649/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Kumar Jain (CA)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 80C

…Jaipur. Hon’ble High Court has held that the power under section 263 is to be exercised in case of no enquiry and not in case of inadequate or lack of enquiry. He has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282 (SC) and submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the phrase “prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue” has to be read in conjunction with the expression “erroneous” order passed by the AO. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue…

Mahim Patran P. Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT -2, Agra

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 195/AGR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 143(3)Section 199(1)Section 205Section 263

…peal filed by the Revenue deserves to be dismissed. - CIT vs. Arvirid Jewellers (2002) 177 CTR (Guj) 546 : (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Gttj) and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 159 CTR (SC) I : (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) relied on). CIT vs. Max India Limited, 295 ITR 282 The phrase "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" in section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has to be read in conjunction with the expression "erroneous" order passed by ITA Nos. 195 & 196/Agr/2015 14 the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to th…

Winvest Holdings (I) Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 1519/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1519/Chny/2019. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-2015. M/S. Winvest Holdings (I) Pvt. Ltd, Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of D-16, 2Nd Floor, Nelson Chambers, Income Tax, No.115 Nelson Manickam Road, Corporate Circle 3(2), Aminjikarai, Chennai. Chennai 600 029. [Pan Aaacw 7724Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel, Advocate

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…an assessment order cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue simply because in the opinion of the ld. PCIT some other views are possible as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd, (2007) 295 ITR 282, wherein it was held as follows. ‘’2. At this stage we may clarify that under paragraph 10 of the judgment in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 this court has taken the view that the phrase "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" under section 263 has to be read in conjunction with the expression "erroneous"…

Udit Prasad Babu, Sambalpur vs. CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 239/CTK/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.239/Ctk/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Udit Prasad Babu, Vs. Pr. Cit, Sambalpur New Colony, Budharaja, Sambalpur स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan No. : Aaypb 0331 K (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.Panda, Senior Advocate With Shri B.R. Panda, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.M.Keshkamat, Citdr

For Appellant: Shri B.Panda, Senior Advocate with Shri B.R. Panda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.M.Keshkamat, CITDR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 264

…is itself wrong. Ld A.R. explained that the cash deposits are being routed through other banks and duly supported with the financial statements and demonstrated the same before us. Ld A.R. relied on the following judicial decisions: i) CIT vs. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282 (SC) ii) Malbar Industrial Co. Ltd vs CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC) 6. On the other hand, ld D.R. relied on the order of the Pr. CIT and explained that in the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has not verified the cash deposits by the assessee in banks and its source, and, therefore, the Pr. CIT is justified in setting aside the assessment ord…

Allauddin Noormohamed Kadiwala, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 31(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5105/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathaallauddin Noormohamed Vs. Ito -31(1)(1) Kadiwala 407, Earnest House A/301, New Ekta Chsl Nariman Point Behram Baug, Jogeshwari (W) Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 102 Pan/Gir No.Aabpk6147K Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 54F

…ed under section 263 of the Act are not fulfilled. Therefore the revision order passed by the learned Pr.CIT is liable to be quashed. The learned A.R. also relied upon the decisions in case of CIT vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. 372 ITR 303, CIT Vs Max India (295 ITR 282 SC), Grasim Industries Ltd Vs CIT (321 ITR 303 Bom), Idea Cellular Ltd Vs DCIT (301 ITR 407 Bom), Real Traders Vs PCIT (2929/Mum/2016), Simandhar Association Vs PCIT (ITA No789/Mum/2016) and Union of India Vs Cadell Weaving Mills Co. Ltd & other( 273 ITR 3 SC). 10. On the other hand, the learned D.R. for the Revenue supported the order of the lea…