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 367,164 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.

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2520/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…

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2519/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…

Mumbai District Central Co Op Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 1(1), Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3198/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 The Mumbai District Cit-1, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd. M.K. Road, Mumbai Bank Bhavan Mumbai 400 020 Vs. 207, D.H. Road, Fort Mumbai 400 001 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaaam3185D यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Amar Gahlot याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri B. Srinivas, Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/03/2018 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 22/03/2018

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

…pur Industries Ltd. [IT Reference No. 39 of 1998, dated 10-7-2017] (para 8), e. CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC) (para 8), f. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83/109 Taxman 66 (SC) (para 10), g. CIT v. Max. India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282/[2008] 166 Taxman 188 (SC) (para 12) and h. CIT v. Gogineni Tobacco Ltd. [1999] 238 ITR 970 (AP) i. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83/109 Taxman 66 (SC) (para 13) followed. j. CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282/[2008] 166 Taxman 188 (SC) (para 14) k. CIT v. Gogineni Tobacco Ltd. [1999] 238 ITR 970 (AP) (para 14). 2.4. We…

M/S. Fusion Voice Solutions India Pvt.Ltd, Vijayawada vs. The ITO, Vijayawada

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 335/VIZ/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Mar 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 263Section 40

…ITA No.335/Vizag/2017 M/s. Fusion Voice Solutions India (P) Ltd., Vijayawada आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणम पीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ी वी. दुगा"राव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ड.एस. . . . सु"दर "संह, लेखा सद"य के सम% BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.335/Vizag/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/s. Fusion Voice Solutions ITO, Ward-2(2), India (P) Ltd., Vijayawada Vijayawada [PAN NoAABCF2029A] (अपीलाथ' / Appellant) (()याथ' / Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant…

ACIT Cir 7(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Laxmi Venture (India) Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6379/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, Circle-7(1)(2) M/S. Laxmi Venture India Room No.130, First Floor, बनाम/ Ltd., 36/40, Mahalaxmi Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bridge Arcade, Vs. Road, Mumbai 400 020 Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400 037 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacl1982G यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Haridas Bhat याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Ms. Aarju Garodia ुनवाई की तायीख / 12/03/2018 Date Of Hearing : आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 12/03/2018

Section 263Section 73

…attention was invited to the show cause notice where even there is no whisper of section 51, therefore, the jurisdiction of the ld. Commissioner is confined to issue raised in show cause notice. Reliance was placed upon the decision in CIT vs Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282) by contending that view of the ld. Commissioner is not sustainable. Broadly, it was contended that the view taken by the ld. Commissioner is contrary to section 5 and 2(24) of the Act and unless the ld. Commissioner comes to a definite conclusion the order cannot be termed as erroneous/prejudicial. 2.1. On the other hand, Shri Manjunatha Swamy,…

M/S. Rbs Credit & Financial Development Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 3, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1156/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1156/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Rbs Credit & Financial Development Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Pcit-3, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 3300 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Md. Usman, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ] I.T.A No. 1156/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s RBS Credit & Financial Development Pvt. Ltd. -vs- PCIT-3, Kolkata [PAN: AABCR 3300 A] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCA For the Respondent : Shri Md. Usman, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing : 27.02.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 09.03.2018 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1. This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order of the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Kolkata [in short the ld. CIT]…

Brighstar Infrastructure P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 3, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 799/MUM/2017[2031-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2018AY 2031-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 799/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Brightstar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Pr. Cit-3, बनाम/ 610, Tulasiani Chambers, Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccb 8367 Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Debashis Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Chandra
Section 263Section 36

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “बी” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 799/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/s. Brightstar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Pr. CIT-3, बनाम/ 610, Tulasiani Chambers, Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AACCB 8367 Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Bhupendra Shah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Debashis Chandra सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 12.12.2017 Date of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 05.03…

M/S vs. R Infotech, Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 374/VIZ/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ITA No.373 & 374/Vizag/2016 M/s. VSR Infotech, Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणम पीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ी वी. दुगा"राव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ड.एस. . . . सु"दर "संह, लेखा सद"य के सम% BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.373& 374/Vizag/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2010-11) M/s. VSR Infotech ITO, Ward-3(2) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [PAN No.AAFFV8176P] (अपीलाथ' / Appellant) (()याथ' / Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri G.V.N. Hari…

M/S vs. R Infotech, Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 373/VIZ/2016[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ITA No.373 & 374/Vizag/2016 M/s. VSR Infotech, Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणम पीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ी वी. दुगा"राव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ड.एस. . . . सु"दर "संह, लेखा सद"य के सम% BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.373& 374/Vizag/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2010-11) M/s. VSR Infotech ITO, Ward-3(2) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [PAN No.AAFFV8176P] (अपीलाथ' / Appellant) (()याथ' / Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri G.V.N. Hari…

M/S Rr Constructions, Vijayawada vs. The DCIT, Vijayawada

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

ITA 248/VIZ/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 263Section 30

…ITA No.248/Vizag/2015 M/s. R.R. Constructions, Vijayawada आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणम पीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ी वी. दुगा"राव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ड.एस. . . . सु"दर "संह, लेखा सद"य के सम% BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.248/Vizag/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/s. R.R. Constructions, DCIT, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada Vijayawada [PAN No.AADFR5608L] (अपीलाथ' / Appellant) (()याथ' / Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri G.V.N. Hari, AR : Shri P…

M/S Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP, Usa, Kolkata vs. CIT, (It & Tp), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 540/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 540/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Khaitan, ARFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 263Section 4Section 44A

…order of CIT(A) in assesee’s case in A.Y.2000-01 on the taxability of fees received by the assesse for services rendered in USA under Article 15 of DTAA. Reference was also made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Max India Ltd 295 ITR 282 (SC) with regard to the conditions to be satisfied for exercise of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. 21. The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the order of CIT. He submitted that there was no Form 3CEB (report of international transaction with Associated Enterprise) filed by the assessee and that was sufficient to justify the proceedings u/s 2…

Kabir Sudhir Mulji, Mumbai vs. DIT (It) II, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3301/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Kabir Sudhir Mulji, Director Of Income Tax Anand Bhavan, 501, (International Taxation)Ii, 2Nd Babulnath X Lane, Scindia House, Vs. Chowpatty, Gr. Flr., Mumbai-7 R/No.007, N.M. Marg, Pan: Aahpm1375M Ballard Pier, Mumbai - 38 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Aasifa Khan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 263(1)Section 56(2)(vi)

…the details but AO was satisfied with the explanation of the assessee. Therefore, order is not erroneous. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (243 ITR 83, SC), CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282 SC). She also relied upon the decisions of various High Courts in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (321 ITR 92, Bom) and CIT vs. DLF Power Ltd. (329 ITR 289, Del.). The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the order of Ld. 5 Shri Kabir Sudhir Mulji DIT(IT) is a non-speaking order. The Ld. A.R. submitted that liquidated damages are not taxab…

Noble Medicals Bcjc Hospitals, Mumbai vs. CIT City-16, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3207/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Noble Medicals Bcjc Cit, City-16, Hospitals, S.V. Road, Santacruz, Mumbai. Mumbai-400054. Versus Pan No.Aagfn4356A Applicant Respondent

Section 119Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263

…ernative method could fetch more revenue or the commission is not in agreement with the view taken by AO would not render the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The reliance is made in case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd. [(2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC)], Grasim Industry Ltd. vs. CIT [(2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom)], CIT vs. LIC Housing Finance Ltd. [(2014) 367 ITR 458 (Bom)], CIT vs. Gera Developments (P) Ltd. [(2016) 387 ITR 691(Bom)] and CIT vs. Kiran Hirji Shah [(2015) 56 taxmann.com 360(Bom)]. In other alternative submission, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that no revisional power should…

Bibhuti B. Dasgupta (HUF), Mumbai vs. Jt CIT RG 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1435/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhbibhuti B. Dasgupta (Huf), Cit-19, Plot No. 285-286, Nileema, Piramal Chambers, Parel, 12Th Road, Khar (W), Vs. Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400052. Pan: Aaahg1175J (Appellant) (Respondent) Bibhuti B. Dasgupta (Huf), Jt.Cit-Range-19(1), Plot No. 285-286, Nileema, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 12Th Road, Khar (W), Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400052. Pan: Aaahg1175J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vipul Joshi (Ar Revenue By : Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 05 .02.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi (ARFor Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263

…ernative method could fetch more revenue or the commission is not in agreement with the view taken by AO would not render the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The reliance is made in case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd. [(2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC)], Grasim Industry Ltd. vs. CIT [(2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom)], CIT vs. LIC Housing Finance Ltd. [(2014) 367 ITR 458 (Bom)], CIT vs. Gera Developments (P) Ltd. [(2016) 387 ITR 691(Bom)] and CIT vs. Kiran Hirji Shah [(2015) 56 taxmann.com 360(Bom)]. 6. In further alternative submission, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that no revisional power sh…

Bibhuti B. Dasgupta (HUF), Mumbai vs. CIT 19, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5129/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhbibhuti B. Dasgupta (Huf), Cit-19, Plot No. 285-286, Nileema, Piramal Chambers, Parel, 12Th Road, Khar (W), Vs. Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400052. Pan: Aaahg1175J (Appellant) (Respondent) Bibhuti B. Dasgupta (Huf), Jt.Cit-Range-19(1), Plot No. 285-286, Nileema, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 12Th Road, Khar (W), Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400052. Pan: Aaahg1175J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vipul Joshi (Ar Revenue By : Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 05 .02.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi (ARFor Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263

…ernative method could fetch more revenue or the commission is not in agreement with the view taken by AO would not render the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The reliance is made in case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd. [(2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC)], Grasim Industry Ltd. vs. CIT [(2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom)], CIT vs. LIC Housing Finance Ltd. [(2014) 367 ITR 458 (Bom)], CIT vs. Gera Developments (P) Ltd. [(2016) 387 ITR 691(Bom)] and CIT vs. Kiran Hirji Shah [(2015) 56 taxmann.com 360(Bom)]. 6. In further alternative submission, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that no revisional power sh…

Startech Engineers, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 22, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3898/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 Startech Engineers, Pr. Commissioner Of G-12, Sinhgarjane Soc. Income Tax-22, बनाम/ Maratha Colony, Room No.409, 4Th Floor, Vs. Santracruz (E), Piramal Chambers, Parel Mumbai-400055 Mumbai-400012 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaxfs3063J "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri D.C.Saboo & Shri Shyam Saboo राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Manjunatha Swamy-Dr

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)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…

Laxman Pandurang Dudhe, Nagpur vs. Principal C.I.T. -2, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 177/NAG/2017[]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Jan 2018

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gitesh Kumar, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 50C

…oing through the documents and after being satisfied about the claim. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the assessee’s issue is squarely covered in his favour by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. – (2007) 213 CTR 266 (SC). Accordingly, we are of the considered view that this is not a fit case for revision as the assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 05.03.2018. (G.D. AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 05.03.2018 VK.…

Khamgaon Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd., Nagpur vs. Principal C.I.T. -1, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 169/NAG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Baral, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…sions allowed the claim, the Assessing Officer cannot be held to be erroneous and is not amenable to be revised u/s 263 of the Act. Learned counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. – (2007) 213 CTR 266 (SC). We find that the fact is that the Assessing Officer has duly considered the submissions made by the assessee with respect to the amount of `6.07 lakhs towards provision for misappropriation and allowed the claim of the assessee after applying his mind and once the Assessing Officer has applied his mind and allowed the claim, he has taken on…

Neha Home Builders Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT - 13, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2964/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Neha Home Builders Pvt. Vs. Cit-13, Mumbai Ltd., 801, Hubtown Solaris, N.S.Phadke Marg Off. Teli Galli, Near Andheri Flyover Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 069 Pan/Gir No. Aaccn7092E Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 115JSection 263Section 80Section 80I

…ned in her order. 9. So far as reduction of profit eligible for deduction u/s.80IB is concerned while computing book profit u/s.115JB, there are the two views possible. As per settled judicial pronouncements by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282 where two view are possible and the AO has taken one of the plausible view, the order passed by AO cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue. 10. Therefore the moot question arises in the case of the assessee is as under: 4 M/s. Neha Home Builders Pvt. Ltd., "Whether the Ld. CIT can invoke the powers under section 263…

The Asst Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri K.C.K.A.Gupta

The Appeal is dismissed

ITTA/251/2005HC Telangana03 Jan 2018

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

For Appellant: Mr.J.V.PrasadFor Respondent: Mr.C.P.Ramaswami
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 263

…Counsel for the respondent: Mr.C.P.Ramaswami GIST: HEAD NOTE: ? Cases cited: 2000 Law Suit (SC) 305 = 2000 (243) ITR 83 2007 Law Suit (SC) 1524 = 2007 (295) ITR 282 Referred Case No.18 of 2001, Dated: 22-12-2017 (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) (2012) 341 ITR 537 (Delhi) (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj.) CVNR, J & TA, J ITTA.No.251 of 2005 Dt: 03-01-2018 3 The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy and The Hon’ble Sri Justice T.Amarnath Goud ITTA.No.251 of 2005 Dt: 03-01-2018 Between: The Asst. Commissio…