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.

Bradma Logistics Parks Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - Central - 4, Mumbai

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

ITA 2756/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2755/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2009-10) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2756/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

…hat the 9 | P a g e ITAs No.2755 & 2756/Mum/2018 view adopted by the A.O. is a possible one. Hence, he submitted that as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) if two views are possible and the assessing officer adopts one view to which the Ld. CIT-is not in agreement with the same will not result in the assessment order being erroneous insofar as it is plea judicial to the interest of revenue.” 7. Similarly, on identical facts, the Tribunal in the case of Nishita Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT…

Bradma Logistics Parks Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - Central - 4, Mumbai

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

ITA 2755/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

Goldcity Properties Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 14, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2179/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhgoldcity Properties Pvt. Ltd. Principal Commissioner Of [Now Merged With Supergold Vs. Income-Tax -14, R. No. 415, 4Th Floor, Properties Pvt. Ltd.], Shop No.1, Building No.2, Aayakar Bhavan, Sharmik Chs Ltd., Tilak M.K. Road, Nagar, Chembur, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400089. Pan: Aaccg1757H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel (AR)For Respondent: Shri B. Jaya Kumar (CIT-DR)

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 152(2)Section 254(1)Section 263

…ew Investment & Trading Pvt Ltd Vs CIT (ITA 53/M/2012 dated 31.10.2013, 11 ITA No. 2179 Mum 2019- Goldcity Properties Pvt. Ltd. (v) CIT Vs Gabriel India ( 203 ITR 108 Bom), (vi) CIT Vs Development Credit Bank Ltd ( 323 ITR 206 Bom), (vii) CIT Vs Max India (295 ITR 282 SC), (viii) CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd ( 332 ITR 167 Delhi), (ix) CIT Vs Vikas Polymers (341 ITR 537 Delhi), (x) CIT Vs Arvind Jewellers (259 ITR 502 Guj), (xi) Malabar Industrial Company Vs CIT (243 ITR 83 SC), (xii) Mehta Trading Vs CIT ( ITA No. 2838/M/2013 dated 31.10.2014, (xiii) PCIT Vs Ginger Properties (P) Ltd. (396 ITR 496 Guj), (xiv) Pyre…

Champ Info Software, Noida vs. Prcit, Noida

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2799/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2013-14 Champ Info Software, Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, E-24, Sector-55, A2, D Block, Sector 24, Noida. Noida (U.P.)-201301 Vs

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms Nidhi Srivastava, C.I.T. DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…in accordance with law. In CIT vs. DLF Ltd. reported in 350 ITR 555 the Hon’ble Delhi High Court applying the mandate of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 243 ITR 83 and CIT vs. Max India Ltd. reported in 295 ITR 282 has held that it is not mere prejudicial to revenue or a mere erroneous view which can be revised but there must be an element of un- sustainability which clothes the Commissioner with the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. Also in the case of ITO vs. D.G. 21 Assessment year 2013-14 Housing Project Ltd reported in 343 ITR 329 it was held by the…

Top Class Capital Markets P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 4663/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4663/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : (2010-11) बिाम/ M/S. Top Class Capital Dcit-1(3)(2), Markets (P.) Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Bombay Mutual R.No. 540, M.K Road, V. Fund Building, Dr. D.N. Mumbai 400020 Road, Fort, Mumbai 400001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aacct5800G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Jitendra Jain Revenue By: Shri. O.P Meena (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 17.05.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 4663/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 04.05.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-3/Dcit-1(3)(2)/It-14/2016-17, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2010-11, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 01.03.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2010-11. I.T.A. No.4663/Mum/2017

For Appellant: Shri. Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Shri. O.P Meena (DR)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

…ken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law.” The 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 v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282.” 8. Based on the legal principles enunciated by the Hon‟ble Courts, if we examine the facts available in the present case, we notice that the assessee‟s explanation that the club membership fee was paid for a representative of the assessee was accepted by the AO on the face of it. The documents furnished along with the reply letter furnished by…

Mrs. Sonali Hemant Bha vs. Ar, Mumbai

In the result, assessee's appeal stands allowed

ITA 742/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Chothani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman, D.R

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

…all cases in which a receipt is sought to be taxed as income, the burden lies upon the department to prove that it is within the taxing provision." We also rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Limited reported in 295 ITR 282 wherein it was held as under : "When the CIT passed the impugned order under s. 263, two views were inherently possible on the word "profits" occurring in the proviso to s.80HHC(3) and therefore, subsequent amendment of s. 80HHC made in the ITA No.1361/Kol/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 S.K. Khemka Vs. Pr. CIT-15 Kol. Page 12 year 2005, though retrospective,…

Amazia Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2499/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2019AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta with Anuj Kushandwala –CA’s (AR)For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena CIT-DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 22Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s Amazia Developers Pvt. DCIT- Circle 1(1)(1) Room No. 533, 5th Ltd. 108, G- Wing, Akruti Commercial Complex, Next Vs. Floor, Aayakar to Akruti Centre Point, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Central Road, Andheri Churchgate, (East) Mumbai-400067. Mumbai-400020. PAN: AACHCA6934H Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Vijay Mehta with Anuj Kushandwala –CA’s (AR) Respondent by : Shri R.P. Meena CIT-DR & M.K. Singh (Sr DR) Date of Hearing : 30.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 08.05.2019 ORDER…

Tata Consultancy Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax - Large Taxpayer'S Unit, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 2794/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2794/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Tata Consultancy Services बिाम/ The Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax-Large Tax 9Th Floor, Nirmal Building, Payer‟S Unit, V. Nariman Point, 29Th Floor, Centre One Mumbai- 400021 World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacr4849R (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. R. R. Vora & Shri. Nikhil Tiwari Revenue By: Shri. R. Manjunatha Swamy (Cit-Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.04.2019

For Appellant: Shri. R. R. Vora &For Respondent: Shri. R. Manjunatha Swamy

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 263Section 263(1)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “E” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2794/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Tata Consultancy Services बिाम/ The Commissioner of Ltd., Income Tax-Large Tax 9th floor, Nirmal Building, Payer‟s Unit, v. Nariman Point, 29th Floor, Centre One Mumbai- 400021 World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN: AAACR4849R (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri. R. R. Vora & Shri. Nikhil Tiwa…

Shri Naresh Kumar Golchha, Katni vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jabalpur

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 90/JAB/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur03 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2013-14 Shri Naresh Kumar Golchha V. Pr. C.I.T.-2 C/O Samapat Lal & Sons Jabalpur Raghunath Ganj Katni Tan/Pan:Afhpg3398F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Dr. H. S. Modh, Advocate Respondent By: Shri P. D. Chougale, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 03 04 2019

For Appellant: Dr. H. S. Modh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougale, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 48Section 50CSection 54E

…bunal (supra), itself shows that there are two views possible in the matter and that as such, ipso facto, the provisions of section 263 of the Act ought not to have been invoked in the matter. The reliance has been placed on ‘CIT vs. Max India Limited’ [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC), wherein it has been held that where two views are possible and the ITA No.90/JAB/2018 Page 4 of 5 Income-tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, 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.…

Philips India Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-IV, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1142/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Mar 2019AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited..........……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant Earlier Known As Philips Electronics India Limited 7 No. Justice Chandra Madhab Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv, Kolkata…….............…....................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Shri Navneet Misra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 27Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

…n two view are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one view, the provisions of Section 263 of the Act, would not be attracted and for this proposition, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Max India Limited [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) & on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502 (Guj.). 5.6. On merits he submitted that the assessee has furnished relevant details in connection with the issue of higher depreciation on moulds and the issue of excise duty not recovered from sales debited to profit and loss account, through submis…

Ett Ltd (Formerly Known As Indian Express Multimedia Ltd), New Delhi vs. CIT, Central-II, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3341/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 115Section 143Section 14ASection 153Section 263Section 80Section 80I

…powers u/s 263 to form a different opinion or take a divergent view. These principles are well settled by the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Limited vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83; and CIT vs. Max India Limited (2007) 295 ITR 282 and reiterated by various courts. Now, in the light of the settled principles we have to see, whether the Ld. CIT was correct in law and in facts in cancelling the assessment order on the points raised by him in impugned order. As discussed above the issues raised by the Ld. CIT for canceling the assessment order and passing a fresh assessment ar…

M/S United Breweries Ltd vs. C.I.T

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

ITA 782/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. B. R Baskaran

For Appellant: Smt. Anitha R, CAFor Respondent: Smt Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 194C(2)Section 244ASection 263Section 40

…not 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.” A similar view has also been taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (supra), wherein it has been held as under: “The phrase "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" in section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1962, has to be read in conjunction with the expression "erroneous" order passed by the Assessing Officer, Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as pre…

Sri V.N.K.Memon, Bellary District vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gulbarga

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

ITA 157/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13 Shri V.N.K. Memon, The Assistant Khb Colony, Commissioner Of Sandur, Vs. Income Tax, Bellary District. Circle – 1, Pan: Agxpm5124G Bellary. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri V.N.K. Memon, The Assistant KHB Colony, Commissioner of Sandur, vs. Income Tax, Bellary District. Circle – 1, PAN: AGXPM5124G Bellary. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri B.S. Balachandran, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 26.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 15.03.2019 O R D E R Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by the assessee and the same is directed against…

Samarth Fablon Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT, Central - 1, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1120/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 263Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(iia)

…the Assessing Officer while passing the Assessment Order. Hence there is no scope to pass order u/s. 263 of the Act where the AO has taken one possible view. We would like to rely on following judgments: 1. CIT (Central) Ludhiana Vs. Max India Limited (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) 2. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, Delhi (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC).” 4. In view of the aforesaid judicial precedent the view taken by the AO allowing the additional depreciation is in line with the Hon’ble High Court supra, it cannot be held to be erroneous. Therefore, since the order of AO is not erroneous and is definitely a plausible v…

M/S. Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 2, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3376/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Smt Beena A. Pillai[Assessment Year: 2012-13] M/S Celebi Delhi Cargo Management Vs. The Pr.C.I.T-2 India Pvt. Ltd New Delhi R. No. Ce-05, First Floor, Import Building – Ii, International Cargo Terminal, Igi Airport, New Delhi Pan : Aadcc 6885 B [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.02.2019

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT- DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 801ASection 80I

…sessing Officer takes recourse to one of the two courses possible in law or where there are two views possible and the Commissioner does not agree with the view 21 taken by the Assessing Officer which has resulted in a loss. [See CIT vs Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC)] (vi) There is no requirement of issuance of a notice before commencing proceedings under Section 263of the Act. What is required is adherence to the principles of natural justice by granting to the assessee an opportunity of being heard before passing an order under Section 263. [See Electro House (supra)]. (vii) If the Assessing Officer ac…

M/S. Love in Action Society, Trivandrum vs. The ITO (Exemption), Trivandrum

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

ITA 459/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sri.Sameer Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sudhansu Shekhar Jha, DR

Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM ITA No.459/Coch/2018 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/s.Love in Action Society The Income Tax Officer Pulivelil, Nalanchira P.O. Vs. (Exemption) Trivandrum – 695 015. Trivandrum. PAN : AABTT5795L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Sameer Kapoor, CA Respondent by : Sri.Sudhansu Shekhar Jha, DR Date of Pronouncement : 04.02.2019 Date of Hearing : 23.01.2019 O R D E R Per George George K. (JM) This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT’s order passed u/s 263 of the I…

Ramesh Kumar Goyal HUF, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward-3, Hisar

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1983/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillaidr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Ramesh Kumar Ito, H.No.467, Urban Estate-Ii, Ward- 3, Hisar, Hisar, Vs. Hisar Haryana, Pin: 125005

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampat, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…the Commissioner. 5. It is further argued by the Ld.AR that if two views are possible and Assessing Officer allows one of the possible views, the CIT cannot sit over the judgement of the AO as held by the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Max India Ltd [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC). It was argued that Similar view has been taken by Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Kelvinator India Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 231 (Del). 6. The Ld.AR has also relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd 332 ITR 167 (Del)where in it was held that AO in the assessing order is not required to gi…

Ramesh Kumar, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward-3, Hisar

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1982/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillaidr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Ramesh Kumar Ito, H.No.467, Urban Estate-Ii, Ward- 3, Hisar, Hisar, Vs. Hisar Haryana, Pin: 125005

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampat, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

Omsairam Steel & Alloys Pvt.Ltd, Jalna vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-1, Aurangabad

Appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 279/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Kumar KabraFor Respondent: Smt. Nandita Kanchan

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 43

…of 2013 and the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court by upholding the findings of the Tribunal which was passed after relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. reported at 295 ITR 282 wherein it has been held that it is settled principle of law that if after examining the details, the Assessing Officer has taken a view which is a possible view then it cannot be treated that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 5. On the other hand, Ld. DR has placed reliance…

M/S Preet Land Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mohali vs. Pr. CIT-2, Chandigarh

ITA 736/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: The Ld. Ao During Original Assessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri. Parikshit AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri. Jagjivan Kumar Garg

Section 143(3)Section 263

…nditure set off against the Revenue generated from the business and hence no loss of revenue can be attributed on this head. He relied on the judgment in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 82 (Supreme Court) and CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (Supreme Court). Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld.PCIT. 13. We find that the amount of Rs. 48.53 Crores consists of Long Term Loans and Advances of Rs. 27.83 Crores on account of advance for land, Rs. 16.72 Crores on account of bianas, Rs. 3.97 Crores on account of land pooling. The argument that the assessee has not claimed this expenditure…