How many judgments cite CIT v. Max India Ltd.?

1,162 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Max India Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 144B, Section 143(2), Section 147.

CIT v. Max India Ltd.

295 ITR 282Supreme Court of India2007#37 most cited

What is CIT v. Max India Ltd. authority for?

Under Section 263, an assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue merely because the Principal Commissioner disagrees with the Assessing Officer's (AO) view, particularly if the AO has adopted one of two permissible views in law, unless that view is completely unsustainable. If due inquiries were made, the AO's order does not become erroneous solely because the fact of inquiries was not recorded.

1,162

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Max India Ltd. · Section 263 Income Tax Act · revision under Section 263 · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · two views possible · Assessing Officer view · Malabar Industrial · inadequate enquiry · non-application of mind · principal commissioner of income-tax

Also reported as

166 Taxmann 188213 CTR 266166 Taxmann.com 188

Sections most often in play

Section 263 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 144B Section 143(2)Section 147 Section 148 Section 1961

Issues it is cited on

malabar industrial inadequate enquiry revision u/s 263 assessment order erroneous lack of enquiry revision under section 263 section 263(1)erroneous and prejudicial section 263 section 26 principal commissioner of income-tax non-application of mind

Judgments citing CIT v. Max India Ltd.

M/S. K Kalpana Infrastructures Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT, Central - 1, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 814/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

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

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80

…s not agree to same, it cannot be taken as an instance involving erroneous assessment prejudicial to interest of the revenue unless of course the Assessing Officer’s view is unsustainable in law. The very view stood reiterated in CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC), CIT v. Nahar Exports Ltd. (2007) 288 ITR 494 (P&H), CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) Grasim Industries vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR, 92 (Bom) and CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. ITA No.1376//2009 and 1382/2009 to name a few judicial precedents. We keep in mind all this settle legal preposition to revert back to the twin is…

Shree Swami Samartha Developers, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - Ward - 21, Mumbai

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

ITA 2969/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood(Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 22Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Ravish Sood(JM) I.T.A. No. 2969/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2013-14) Shree Swami Samartha PCIT-21 Developers Vs. Piramal Chambers 19-B, Suyash, Gokhale Parel Road North), Dadar (West) Mumbai-400 012. Mumbai-400 028. PAN : AABFS7754E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Girish Dave & Shri Tanzil R. Padvekar Department by Shri K. Madhusudan Date of Hearing 25.09.2018 Date of Pronouncement 31.10.2018 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :- The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the validity of the revision ord…

Skm Real Infra Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3277/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S S.K.M. Real Infra Ltd. Pr. Commissioner Of ‘Raaj Chambers’, Plot Income Tax, Central-4, Vs. No.115, R.K. Paramhans Income Tax Office, Marg, Andheri (E), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Mumbai-400069 Road, Mumbai- 400020. Pan No. Aafcs2659R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Pradeep Sharma, Ar Revenue By : Mr. R. Manjunatha Swamy, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/10/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/10/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Pradeep Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Mr. R. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

…89,905/- i.e. Rs.1,06,89,495/-) instead on the basis of purchase figure (5% of Rs.32,45,71,664/- i.e. Rs.1,62,28,583/-) resulted in short determination of total income by Rs.55,39,088/- (Rs.1,62,28,583 – Rs.1,06,89,495/-) In the case of CIT v. Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282) (SC), it is held that if two views were possible on the disputed issue on the day when the Commissioner passes the order, then the order u/s 263 is not tenable. In the instant case, two views were possible on the issue when the Commissioner passed the order on 24.03.2017. Profits are generated by sales. The gross profit margin is the surplus ava…

Celebi Delhi Cargo Management India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3182/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhary[Assessment Year: 2011-12] M/S Celebi Delhi Cargo Management Vs. The Pr.C.I.T India Pvt. Ltd New Delhi R. No. 23, Import Building - 3 International Cargo Terminal Igi Airport, New Delhi Pan : Aadcc 6885 B [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT- DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801ASection 80I

…e Assessing 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 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…

Acc Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 4581/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acc Ltd. (Formerly Known Commissioner Of As The Associated Cement Income Tax-Ltu Vs. Companies Ltd.) Cement Mumbai. House, 121, M.K. Road, Mumbai. Pan No. Aaact1507C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Yogesh Thar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. R.P. Meena, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/10/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. R.P. Meena, CIT DR

Section 263Section 32

…f section 263 i.e. order is ‘erroneous’ and ‘prejudicial to the interest of revenue’ are conjuctive. He relies on the decision in CIT v. Greenworld Corporation (181 Taxman 111) (SC), Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (243 ITR 83) (SC), CIT v. Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282) (SC). Finally, it is submitted by the Ld. counsel that the expenditure incurred for acquiring non-compete right is capital in nature entitled to depreciation u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act. To support his contentions, reliance is placed by him on the decision in CIT v. Ingersoll Rand International Ind. Ltd. (227 Taxman 176) (Kar HC) (2014) and Pentaso…

Gumpro Drilling Fluids Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 15, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2868/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Gumpro Drilling Fluids Vs Pr. Cit-15, Private Limited, Room No.517, 5Th Floor, Opp. Karma Stambha, Aayakar Bhavan, Hazarat Compound, Lbs M. K. Road, Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400083 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aadcg2319N "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Ashok J. Patil राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri L.K.S. Dahiya Cit-Dr

Section 120Section 144ASection 263Section 35

…al.) (para 17), xxxiii. CIT v. J.L. Morrison (India) Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 593/225 Taxman 17 (Mag.)/46 taxmann.com 215 (Cal.) (para 17), xxxiv. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83/109 Taxman 66 (SC) (para 18), xxxv. CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282/166 Taxman 188 (SC) (para 18), xxxvi. CIT v. Maithan International [2015] 375 ITR 123/231 Taxman 381/56 taxmann.com 283 (Cal.) (para 20), xxxvii. CIT v. Navodaya Castles (P.) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 306/226 Taxman 190/50 taxmann.com 110 (Delhi) (para 20), xxxviii. CIT v. N.R. Portfolio (P.) Ltd. [2013] 214 Taxman 408/29 taxmann.com 291 (Delhi) (para…

Durgesh Autofin P.Ltd, Bijnor vs. Prcit, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2539/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 2539/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Durgesh Autofin P. Ltd., Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, C/O Sh. Pankaj Kumar, Director, Muzaffarnagar-251002 S/O Late Sh. Tejpal Singh, Mandi Kotla, Near Nehru Murti, Chandpur, Bijnot, Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccd0768P Assessee By : Sh. Vivek Bansal, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rachna Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.03.2018 Of Ld. Pr. Cit, Muzaffarnagar U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act).

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269SSection 271DSection 41(1)Section 68

…) 95 Taxmann.com 261 (Guj.) " CIT Vs Jawahar Bhattacharjee (2012) 341 ITR 434 (Gauhati) 24 Durgesh Autofin P. Ltd. " CIT Vs Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj.) " Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) " CIT Vs Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) 19. It was contended that detailed enquiries were conducted by the AO on both the issues and the ld. Pr. CIT had exercised her revisionary power only on the ground that the AO had failed to examine the case properly, such observation of ld. Pr. CIT was based on apprehensions and surmises, but without any basis to carry such apprehension. It…

M/S City Beautiful Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. Pr. CIT-2, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 554/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 554/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S City Beautiful Hotels & Pcit-2, बनाम Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh Sco 471-471, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit AggarwalFor Respondent: Sh. N.D.Gupta, Sr.DR

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ -“ए”, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य एवं "ीमती अ"नपूणा" गु"ता, लेखा सद"य BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 554/CHD/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S City Beautiful Hotels and PCIT-2, बनाम Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh SCO 471-471, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AADCC0461D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Sh. N.D.Gupta, S…

Maharashtra Cricket Association, Pune vs. CIT-1, Pune

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1177/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1177/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Maharashtra Cricket Association, 5Th Floor, Amar Avinash Corporate City, 10, Bund Garden Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411001 …. Pan: Aaatm2192D Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune

For Appellant: S/Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Ms. Nirupama Kotru, CIT and Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

…be said that the Assessing Officer had not applied her mind. The assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act on this count was challenged by the assessee relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). The assessee further explained that even on merits, subsidy was a benefit given and was considered to be in the interest of public. It was a voluntary payment made by one person to another, wherein BCCI gave subsidies voluntarily and gratuitously to all State Cricket Associations, which were affiliated to it, including the assessee. It was…

Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd., Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Mumbai

In the result the grounds of

ITA 2263/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanlarsen & Toubro Infotech Pcit-2 Room No. 384, 3Rd Floor, Ltd. Taxation Department, L&T House, 2Nd Floor, N.M. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400001 Pan: Abgps5477E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri (AR)For Respondent: Shri N.S. Jangpangi (CIT-

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)Section 92

…on in computing the taxable income amongst other things. In support of his submission the learned AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Malabar industrial Co Ltd Versus CIT 243 ITR 83(SC), CIT Versus Max India [2007 ] 295 ITR 282 (SC ), decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT versus Gabriel India Ltd 203 ITR 108(Bombay), decision of Delhi High Court in case of CIT versus Escort Ltd [2011] 338 ITR 435(Delhi), Calcutta High Court in Russell properties Private Ltd Versus ACIT (109 ITR 229 (Calcutta). 6. On merit the ld AR for the assessee strongly relied upon th…

Nkg Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT, C- 3, New Delhi

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3827/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 263(1)

…record, passes the assessment order and more particularly in the circumstances when it cannot be stated that there is either lack of enquiry or inadequate enquiry. 39. It is pertinent to note that as is held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC), where two views are possible and one of the possible views have been taken by the Ld. Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order, then the provisions of Section 263 of the Act cannot be 23 invoked. In this case, the peculiarity is that the sales are accepted creating a situation where, if we accept the view taken by the Ld. CIT(A)…

Nkg Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT, C- 3, New Delhi

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3826/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 263(1)

Nkg Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT, C- 3, New Delhi

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3825/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 263(1)

Melaila Resorts Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 799/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blem/S. Melaila Resorts Pvt. Ltd., V. Prl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax-2 Room No.344, 3Rd Floor, Bharat Insurance Building, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 3Rd Floor, 15-A, Mumbai-400 020 Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaecm 9152 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. P. Daniel Department By : Shri V. Sreekar

For Appellant: Dr. P. DanielFor Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(2)(i)

…nd thus 4 M/s. Melaila Resorts Pvt. Ltd., the order passed by the Assessing Officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: - a. CIT v. Max India Ltd., [295 ITR 282 (SC)] b. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., v. CIT [243 ITR 83 (SC)] c. Grasim Industries Ltd., v. CIT [321 ITR 92 (Bom.)] d. CIT. v. Gabriel India Ltd., [203 ITR 108 (Bom.)] e. M/s. Real Trade Technologies v. Prl. CIT in ITA.No. 2929/Mum/2016 dated 22.07.2016. 5. On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that no proper inquiries were made by the Assessing O…

Shekhar S. Dadarkar, Mumbai vs. DCIT 24(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5255/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar Cit-24, Bandra Kurla Prop. M/S S.D. Construction Vs. Complex, Bandra (E), Geetanjali Chs Ltd., Plot Mumbai-400050. No. 11, Shastri Nagar, Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400104. Pan No. Adapd8694G Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar Dcit-24 Bandra Kurla Prop. M/S S.D. Construction Vs. (E), Mumbai-400050. Geetanjali Chs Ltd., Plot No. 11, Shastri Nagar, Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400104. Pan No. Adapd8694G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sunil A. Desai, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manjunatha Swamy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 31 /05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil A. Desai, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 251Section 263Section 271B

…Private Limited v. ITO (ITA No. 6183/Del/2014) for AY 2007-08 by ITAT ‘B’ Bench New Delhi; M/s Anish Ahmad & Sons v. CIT(A) (2008) 297 ITR 441 (SC); CIT v. M/s Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Private Limited (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom); CIT v. Max India Limited (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC); Moil Limited v. CIT (2017) 396 ITR 244 (Bom); Pr. CIT v. Ramchandra Naidu [Tax Appeal No. 16 of 2016] decided on July 24, 2017 by Bombay High Court; Idea Cellular Limited v. DCIT (2008) 301 ITR 407 (Bom); CIT v. Gabriel India Limited (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom); CIT v. Nirav Modi (2017) 390 ITR 292 (Bom); Refex Industries Limited v. DCIT (ITA…

Milestone Real Estate Fund, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-25, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2509/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K Pradhanmilestone Real Estate Fund 402–A, Hallmark Business Plaza Sant Dhyaneshwar Marg ……………. Appellant Bandra, Mumbai 400 051 Pan – Aaati5880L V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–25(3), Mumbai Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Counsel A/W Shri Madhur Agarwal Revenue By : Shri Anand Mohan

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Counsel a/wFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan

Section 10Section 115USection 263

…ection 10(23FB) of the Act. Thus, he submitted, the twin conditions of section 263 of the Act in the present case are not satisfied. In support of his contention, the learned Sr. Counsel relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Max India Ltd., [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC); ii) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v/s CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC); iii) CIT v/s Fine Jewellery India Ltd., [2015] 372 ITR 303 (Bom.); iv) M/s. Rallies India Ltd. v/s DCIT, ITA no.3564/Mum./2016, dated 13.04.2017; v) Gehna Jewlers Pvt. Ltd. v/s PCIT, ITA no.3530/Mum./ 2017, dated 22.11.201; and vi) CIT v/s Gabriel India Ltd., [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom.…

Shri Naresh Agarwal, Alwar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar

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

ITA 700/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Aug 2018AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 57

…at the entire record and details were available in the assessment record and, therefore, it is not a case of the claim which is not permissible under the law. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following decisions :- CIT vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) Honda Motorcycle & Scooters India Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT 53 CCH 241 (Trib.)(Del.) order dated 26.06.2018. GE Capital Services India vs. ACIT 52 CCH 372 (RTrib)(Del.) order dated 23.04.2018. 3.1. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that it is apparent from the assessment order that the…

Shri Naresh Agarwal, Alwar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar

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

ITA 699/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 57

The Cricket Club of India Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2800/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2800/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri R Murlidhar, ARFor Respondent: Shri R Manjunatha Swamy

Section 10(15)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 263Section 263(1)

…essee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 109) (Bom). The learned Counsel for the assessee also relied on the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd (2007) 295 ITR 282(SC). The learned Counsel for the assessee also stated that even this exemption granted by order under section 143(3) of the Act while framing the assessment, the same was withdrawn vide rectification order passed by AO under section 154 of the Act dated 16.12.2016 and this exempt income was treated as taxable. No exemption under section 10(15) of…

Lhotse Developerrs & Traders P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 12, Mumbai

In the result the grounds of appeals raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2811/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Lhotse Developers & Traders Dcit, Ward 12(3)(2) Pvt. Ltd., Raheja Chambers, Room No. 363, Aayakar Linking Road, Santaxruz (West), Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400054. Mumbai-20. Pan: Aabcl0079N Apellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Nishit Gandhi (Ar) Respondent By : Shri R.P. Meena (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2018 Order Per Pawan Singh;

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi (AR)For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

…trial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (2000) 243ITR 83 (SC). The ld PCIT is not empower to revise the Assessment order on an 4 ITA No.2811/M/17- M/s Lhotse Developers & Traders Pvt. Ltd. issue which is debatable and relied on the case law in CIT v/s Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). 5. For second proposition the ld. AR for assessee submits the Assessee had borrowed loans for the purpose of construction of plant / building and the construction work was suspended due to litigation, etc. and such monies were invested in fixed deposit, any interest earned on such fixed deposits would be reduced from the cost of the plan…