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.

S. Kamala, Trichy vs. ACIT, Trichy

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand

ITA 2393/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

…n the judgment of Apex Court in Suresh Chandra Mittal (supra), took one of the possible views, the same cannot be considered to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. Referring to the judgment of Apex Court in CIT v. MAX India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282, the Ld. representative submitted that when the Assessing Officer has taken one of the possible views on the basis of the judgment of Apex Court, the Administrative Commissioner cannot substitute his view by holding that the dropping the penalty proceeding is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. 10 I.T.A. Nos.2450 to 2452/…

H. Pradeepa, Trichy vs. ACIT, Trichy

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand

ITA 2392/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

…n the judgment of Apex Court in Suresh Chandra Mittal (supra), took one of the possible views, the same cannot be considered to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. Referring to the judgment of Apex Court in CIT v. MAX India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282, the Ld. representative submitted that when the Assessing Officer has taken one of the possible views on the basis of the judgment of Apex Court, the Administrative Commissioner cannot substitute his view by holding that the dropping the penalty proceeding is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. 10 I.T.A. Nos.2450 to 2452/…

V. Harikrishnan, Trichy vs. ACIT, Trichy

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand

ITA 2391/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

…n the judgment of Apex Court in Suresh Chandra Mittal (supra), took one of the possible views, the same cannot be considered to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. Referring to the judgment of Apex Court in CIT v. MAX India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282, the Ld. representative submitted that when the Assessing Officer has taken one of the possible views on the basis of the judgment of Apex Court, the Administrative Commissioner cannot substitute his view by holding that the dropping the penalty proceeding is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. 10 I.T.A. Nos.2450 to 2452/…

G. Ananthi, Trichy vs. ACIT, Trichy

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand

ITA 2390/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

…n the judgment of Apex Court in Suresh Chandra Mittal (supra), took one of the possible views, the same cannot be considered to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. Referring to the judgment of Apex Court in CIT v. MAX India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282, the Ld. representative submitted that when the Assessing Officer has taken one of the possible views on the basis of the judgment of Apex Court, the Administrative Commissioner cannot substitute his view by holding that the dropping the penalty proceeding is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. 10 I.T.A. Nos.2450 to 2452/…

V. Harikrishnan (HUF), Trichy vs. ACIT, Trichy

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand

ITA 2389/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

…n the judgment of Apex Court in Suresh Chandra Mittal (supra), took one of the possible views, the same cannot be considered to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. Referring to the judgment of Apex Court in CIT v. MAX India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282, the Ld. representative submitted that when the Assessing Officer has taken one of the possible views on the basis of the judgment of Apex Court, the Administrative Commissioner cannot substitute his view by holding that the dropping the penalty proceeding is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. 10 I.T.A. Nos.2450 to 2452/…

A. Geetha, Trichy vs. ACIT, Trichy

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand

ITA 2452/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

…n the judgment of Apex Court in Suresh Chandra Mittal (supra), took one of the possible views, the same cannot be considered to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. Referring to the judgment of Apex Court in CIT v. MAX India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282, the Ld. representative submitted that when the Assessing Officer has taken one of the possible views on the basis of the judgment of Apex Court, the Administrative Commissioner cannot substitute his view by holding that the dropping the penalty proceeding is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. 10 I.T.A. Nos.2450 to 2452/…

S. Ashok Kumar, Trichy vs. ACIT, Trichy

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand

ITA 2451/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

…n the judgment of Apex Court in Suresh Chandra Mittal (supra), took one of the possible views, the same cannot be considered to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. Referring to the judgment of Apex Court in CIT v. MAX India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282, the Ld. representative submitted that when the Assessing Officer has taken one of the possible views on the basis of the judgment of Apex Court, the Administrative Commissioner cannot substitute his view by holding that the dropping the penalty proceeding is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. 10 I.T.A. Nos.2450 to 2452/…

V. Ramesh (HUF), Trichy vs. ACIT, Trichy

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand

ITA 2388/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

…n the judgment of Apex Court in Suresh Chandra Mittal (supra), took one of the possible views, the same cannot be considered to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. Referring to the judgment of Apex Court in CIT v. MAX India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282, the Ld. representative submitted that when the Assessing Officer has taken one of the possible views on the basis of the judgment of Apex Court, the Administrative Commissioner cannot substitute his view by holding that the dropping the penalty proceeding is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. 10 I.T.A. Nos.2450 to 2452/…

Prasanna. G., Trichy vs. ACIT, Trichy

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand

ITA 2387/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

…n the judgment of Apex Court in Suresh Chandra Mittal (supra), took one of the possible views, the same cannot be considered to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. Referring to the judgment of Apex Court in CIT v. MAX India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282, the Ld. representative submitted that when the Assessing Officer has taken one of the possible views on the basis of the judgment of Apex Court, the Administrative Commissioner cannot substitute his view by holding that the dropping the penalty proceeding is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. 10 I.T.A. Nos.2450 to 2452/…

V. Damotharan (HUF), Trichy vs. ACIT, Trichy

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand

ITA 2386/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

…n the judgment of Apex Court in Suresh Chandra Mittal (supra), took one of the possible views, the same cannot be considered to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. Referring to the judgment of Apex Court in CIT v. MAX India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282, the Ld. representative submitted that when the Assessing Officer has taken one of the possible views on the basis of the judgment of Apex Court, the Administrative Commissioner cannot substitute his view by holding that the dropping the penalty proceeding is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. 10 I.T.A. Nos.2450 to 2452/…

Chennai Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Chennai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -8, Chennai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2168/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Smt. Ruby George, CITFor Respondent: 08.03.2018
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234A(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2167 & 2168/CHNY/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/s. Chennai Central Co-operative Bank Vs The ACIT, Limited, Non Corporate Circle -11, Chennai C/o. M/s. Ramesh and Ramachandran, Chartered Accountants, New No.39, Old No.29/3, Viswanathapuram Main Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024 PAN: AAAAC0982C (अप…

Chennai Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Chennai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -8, Chennai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2167/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Smt. Ruby George, CITFor Respondent: 08.03.2018
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234A(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2167 & 2168/CHNY/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/s. Chennai Central Co-operative Bank Vs The ACIT, Limited, Non Corporate Circle -11, Chennai C/o. M/s. Ramesh and Ramachandran, Chartered Accountants, New No.39, Old No.29/3, Viswanathapuram Main Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024 PAN: AAAAC0982C (अप…

Saigal Sea Trade, Mumbai vs. CIT -18, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2511/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Saigal Sea Trade, Cit-18, J.V. House, 02Nd Floor, D.S. Piramal Chambers, बनाम/ Babrekar Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400028 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaafs6920K

Section 142(1)Section 263

…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…

Surabi Bullion, Coimbatore vs. DCIT Central 1, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2569/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2489/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2569/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Surabi Bullion, The Deputy Commissioner Of 98, Vairam Street, V. Income Tax, Coimbatore – 1. Central – 1, Coimbatore. Pan : Abrfs 7669 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ruby George, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

…after considering all the material documents and reconciliation statement filed by the assessee. Therefore, it is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. 4. Referring to the judgments of Apex Court in CIT v. Max India Limited (2007) 295 ITR 282 and in Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. v. CIT (20000 243 ITR 83, the Ld.counsel submitted that when two views are possible, the Assessing Officer has taken one of the possible views. The Principal Commissioner cannot say that the view taken by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. According to the Ld. couns…

Surabi Bullion, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2489/CHNY/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2489/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2569/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Surabi Bullion, The Deputy Commissioner Of 98, Vairam Street, V. Income Tax, Coimbatore – 1. Central – 1, Coimbatore. Pan : Abrfs 7669 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ruby George, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

…after considering all the material documents and reconciliation statement filed by the assessee. Therefore, it is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. 4. Referring to the judgments of Apex Court in CIT v. Max India Limited (2007) 295 ITR 282 and in Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. v. CIT (20000 243 ITR 83, the Ld.counsel submitted that when two views are possible, the Assessing Officer has taken one of the possible views. The Principal Commissioner cannot say that the view taken by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. According to the Ld. couns…

Kishan Gopal Mohta, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-35, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 182/KOL/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2010-11 Kishan Gopal Mohta V/S. Acit, Circle-35, Aayakar 7, Lyons Range, 2Nd Floor, Bhawan, P-7, Room No. 2A, Kolkata-001 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Adqpm 0469 E] Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri P.J. Bhide, Fca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri G. Hangshing, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 01-03-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata Dated 04.04.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Acit, Circle-35, Kolkata U/S 263/154/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 26.02.2016 For Assessment Year 2010-11 & Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds:- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As In Law, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Erred In Holding That The Assessing Officer Was Justified In Invoking The Provision Of Section 14A Of The Act. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.94,89,504/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S. 14A Of The Act. 3. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata, Erred In Holding That

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 263

…esaid facts and findings we held that the entire revisionary jurisdiction exercised by the Ld. CIT u/s 263 of the Act is not sustainable in law in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Max. India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 295 ITR 282 (SC). Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee for the assessment year 2010-11 are allowed.” From the above proposition there remains no doubt that the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act is not sustainable. Therefore, the order passed in consequent to direction issued u/s. 263 of the Act becomes infructuous. Hence, we rev…

Gautam Tube Corporation, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 19, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3609/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 120Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263

…ube Corporation 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…

Gautam Tube Corporation, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 19, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3608/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 120Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263

…ube Corporation 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…

Sharad Bhagwat Tembwalkar, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 27, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 530/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhmr. Sharad Bhagwant Principle Commissioner Of Tembwalkar, Flat No. 1501, Income-Tax -27 Adonis Building, Raheja Mumbai. Acropolis, Near Telecom Vs. Factory, Govanid, Mumbai -400088 Pan:Advpt6884B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Dhiren P. Talati (Ar) Revenue By : Sh. Manjunatha Swamy (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 17.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.04.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of Income Tax Act (‘The Act’) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax -27, Mumbai

For Appellant: Sh. Dhiren P. Talati (AR)For Respondent: Sh. Manjunatha Swamy
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263Section 54F

…pinion in the matter/issue, the power under section 263 cannot be exercised. In support of his legal submission, the Ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following decision: 1. CIT Vs. Fine Jewellery (I) Ltd. (Bombay High Court). 2. CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC). 3. Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs. CIT 301 ITR 407 (Bom. High Court) 4. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC). 5. CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom. High Court). 6. Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT 321 ITR 92 (Bom. High Court). 7. CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 ( Del. High Court). 8. Narayan Tatu Rane Vs. ITO (ITA No. 26…

M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2521/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Bhoomija Verma, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A. T VARKEY, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं/.ITA No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/s. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.PAN/GIR No. : AAACG 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.ITA No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/s. Cliff TreximPvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkat…