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 367,154 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.

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

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

ITA 635/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 310/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Kishan Gopal Mohta -Vs- Jcit, Range-35,Kolkata [Pan: Adqpm 0469 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 634 & 635/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Kishan Gopal Mohta -Vs- Acit, Circle-35,Kolkata [Pan: Adqpm 0469 E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Bhide, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjune, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)

…d, the same has to be construed as one of the possible views and revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 would not lie on the same. In this regard, the Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Max. India Ltd. reported in 295 ITR 282 (S C). 7 A.Yrs. 2010-11to2012-13 7. In response to this, the Ld. DR argued that the Ld. CIT had duly discussed the calculation made by the Ld. AO in his order. He pointed out to the details of interest paid on loans filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT which is enclosed in page 25 of the paper book wherein the assessee himself has agreed for…

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

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

ITA 634/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 310/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Kishan Gopal Mohta -Vs- Jcit, Range-35,Kolkata [Pan: Adqpm 0469 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 634 & 635/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Kishan Gopal Mohta -Vs- Acit, Circle-35,Kolkata [Pan: Adqpm 0469 E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Bhide, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjune, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)

…d, the same has to be construed as one of the possible views and revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 would not lie on the same. In this regard, the Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Max. India Ltd. reported in 295 ITR 282 (S C). 7 A.Yrs. 2010-11to2012-13 7. In response to this, the Ld. DR argued that the Ld. CIT had duly discussed the calculation made by the Ld. AO in his order. He pointed out to the details of interest paid on loans filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT which is enclosed in page 25 of the paper book wherein the assessee himself has agreed for…

Kishan Gopal Mohta, Kolkata vs. JCIT, RG-35, Kolkata

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

ITA 310/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 310/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Kishan Gopal Mohta -Vs- Jcit, Range-35,Kolkata [Pan: Adqpm 0469 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 634 & 635/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Kishan Gopal Mohta -Vs- Acit, Circle-35,Kolkata [Pan: Adqpm 0469 E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Bhide, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjune, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)

…d, the same has to be construed as one of the possible views and revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 would not lie on the same. In this regard, the Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Max. India Ltd. reported in 295 ITR 282 (S C). 7 A.Yrs. 2010-11to2012-13 7. In response to this, the Ld. DR argued that the Ld. CIT had duly discussed the calculation made by the Ld. AO in his order. He pointed out to the details of interest paid on loans filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT which is enclosed in page 25 of the paper book wherein the assessee himself has agreed for…

M/S. M. Hanumantha Rao, Bellary vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kalaburagi

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

ITA 158/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S. M. Hanumatha Rao, H. No.37, W. No.17, Ground Floor, Main Road Near Park Patel Nagar, Ballari – 583101. … Appellant Pan:Aanfm 1777H Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1, Ballary. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. P. Dinesha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Parbat, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

…being absent, the impugned order passed under Section 263 is clearly in violation and contrary to the law rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of (a) Malabar Industrial Co., Ltd vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and (b) CIT vs. Max India Ltd (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Without prejudice, the assessing officer having adopted one of the possible views year after years, the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 by the CIT is not justified. 5. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the appellant prays tha…

ITO 2(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Canara Bank Securities Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 821/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer-2(1)(4), M/S Canara Bank Securities Room No.553, 5Th Floor, Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 7Th Floor, Maker Chamber-Iii, Vs. M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaacg2218H

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263oSection 56

…views are possible, the CIT cannot substitute his view with that of the AO which is impressible under proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. The assessee company relied upon the following decisions to advance and support its contentions: (i) CIT v. Max India Limited 295 ITR 282 (Bom.) (ii) CIT v Gabriel India Limited 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) (iii) Mrs Praveen P Bharucha v. DCIT 348 ITR 325(Bom.) The assessee company also submitted that in the orders dated 19th March 2013 u/s 263 of the Act, the CIT has observed 9 Canara Bank Securities Ltd. that this issue is not free from doubt that the income earned by the assessee company…

Jsw Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4086/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Saikja
Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 80I

…fficer is completely unsustainable in law. The same has been held in a number of cases including the jurisdictional courts. A few of the said judgements on which strong reliance is being placed are being mentioned hereunder: i. CIT v. Max India Limited [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) ii. Malbar Industries Co Ltd v. C1T [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) iii. Grasim Ind. Ltd. vs. C1T (HC, Bom.) (1TA No.113/1990) (Order dt. 01.02.10) CIT vs. Bank of Maharashtra (HC, Bom.) (ITA No.2027&2102/2013) (Order dt. 07.12.15) 36. In view of the above mentioned fact and circumstance of the case as well as the case laws cited above, it may be see…

Jsw Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4064/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Saikja
Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 80I

…fficer is completely unsustainable in law. The same has been held in a number of cases including the jurisdictional courts. A few of the said judgements on which strong reliance is being placed are being mentioned hereunder: i. CIT v. Max India Limited [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) ii. Malbar Industries Co Ltd v. C1T [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) iii. Grasim Ind. Ltd. vs. C1T (HC, Bom.) (1TA No.113/1990) (Order dt. 01.02.10) CIT vs. Bank of Maharashtra (HC, Bom.) (ITA No.2027&2102/2013) (Order dt. 07.12.15) 36. In view of the above mentioned fact and circumstance of the case as well as the case laws cited above, it may be see…

Jsw Steels Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4063/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Saikja
Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 80I

…fficer is completely unsustainable in law. The same has been held in a number of cases including the jurisdictional courts. A few of the said judgements on which strong reliance is being placed are being mentioned hereunder: i. CIT v. Max India Limited [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) ii. Malbar Industries Co Ltd v. C1T [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) iii. Grasim Ind. Ltd. vs. C1T (HC, Bom.) (1TA No.113/1990) (Order dt. 01.02.10) CIT vs. Bank of Maharashtra (HC, Bom.) (ITA No.2027&2102/2013) (Order dt. 07.12.15) 36. In view of the above mentioned fact and circumstance of the case as well as the case laws cited above, it may be see…

Jsw Stel Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4062/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Saikja
Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 80I

…fficer is completely unsustainable in law. The same has been held in a number of cases including the jurisdictional courts. A few of the said judgements on which strong reliance is being placed are being mentioned hereunder: i. CIT v. Max India Limited [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) ii. Malbar Industries Co Ltd v. C1T [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) iii. Grasim Ind. Ltd. vs. C1T (HC, Bom.) (1TA No.113/1990) (Order dt. 01.02.10) CIT vs. Bank of Maharashtra (HC, Bom.) (ITA No.2027&2102/2013) (Order dt. 07.12.15) 36. In view of the above mentioned fact and circumstance of the case as well as the case laws cited above, it may be see…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. A.V. V. Varaprasad

ITTA/742/2017HC Telangana29 Nov 2017

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

For Appellant: Mr. K.Raji Reddy
Section 143Section 2Section 263

…ovable property to be taken or retained in part performance of a contract of the nature referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 1 (4 of 1882); or 1 (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) 2 (2000) 295 ITR 282 (SC) 3 (2012) 341 ITR 537 (Delhi) CVNR,J & TA, J I.T.T.A.No.742 of 2017 Date: 29.11.2017 6 (vi). Any transaction (whether by way of becoming a member of, or acquiring shares in, a co-operative society, company or other association of persons or by way of any agreement or any arrangement or in any other manner whatsoever) w…

Devang Gandhi, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

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

ITA 3746/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms Sunita Billa
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…02 (Guj) and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 159 CTR (SC) 1 : (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) relied on).” In our opinion, the impugned case is duly covered by this decision also. 7. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India Limited, 295 ITR 282 (SC) has held as under :- “The phrase “prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue” in section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has to be read in conjunction with the expression “erroneous” order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the in…

Devang Gandhi, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

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

ITA 3745/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms Sunita Billa
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…02 (Guj) and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 159 CTR (SC) 1 : (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) relied on).” In our opinion, the impugned case is duly covered by this decision also. 7. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India Limited, 295 ITR 282 (SC) has held as under :- “The phrase “prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue” in section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has to be read in conjunction with the expression “erroneous” order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the in…

Dev Steel, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Navi Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3752/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 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…

Dev Steel, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Navi Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3748/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 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…

Devang Gandhi, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3747/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 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…

Shri Askokumar S. Bansal, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1481/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 263Section 40Section 40A(3)

…hat whatever query has been made by the ld. Pr.CIT(A), similar query were made in the Ashokkumar S. Bansal vs. PCIT Asst.Year – 2010-11. assessment order u/s.143(3). Ld. AR cited judgments of Apex Court in the in several matters: CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC): “it was held that the phrase prejudicial to the interests of the under section 263 has to be read in conjunction with the expression erroneous order passed by the assessing Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the assessing officer cannot be treated as prejudicial interests of the revenue. For example, when an Income Tax Of…

Fedex Express Tranportation and Supply Chain Services (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 9, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3621/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Fedex Express Transportation The Principal Commissioner Of & Supply Chain Services Income Tax – 9 Room No.214, 2Nd Floor, (India) Private Limited Boomerang, Unit No.801, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Wing-A, 8Th Floor, Mumbai - 400020 Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aabcf6516A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain Revenue By : Shri S. Padmaja (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Shri S. Padmaja (CIT-DR)
Section 119Section 139(5)Section 263

…cannot be treated by CIT as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In this connection we are supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. reported in 243 ITR 83 and Max India Ltd. reported in 295 ITR 282. 15. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 17.11.2017. (RAJESH KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 17.11.2017. * MP. A.Y.2011-12 आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Appellant 1. ""थ" / The Respondent. 2. आयकर आयु" अपील / ( The CIT(A) ) 3. आयकर आयु" / CIT 4.…

Gxs India Technology Centre Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1041/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Padmameenakshi, JCIT (DR)
Section 234DSection 28Section 37(1)

…passed by CIT u/s. 263 of IT Act and it was held in this case as per Para no. 8 of this tribunal order noted that this was the claim in that case that on the basis of judgment of Hon’ble Apex court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. as reported in 295 ITR 282, at least two views were possible on the question of taxability of the two amounts claimed by the assessee and if that is so, there can be no resort to action under section 263. The objection of CIT was this in that case that the deposits represented capital amounts and if they were not returned to the assessee, the loss was capital loss not allo…

Canara Bank vs. CIT

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 743/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Canara Bank, Bsca Section, Head Office, J C Road, Bengaluru-560 002. Pan: Aaacc 6106 G … Appellant Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri G.Sarangan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 115PSection 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 36(1)(viii)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s.Canara Bank, BSCA Section, Head Office, J C Road, Bengaluru-560 002. PAN: AAACC 6106 G … Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, LTU, Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant by : Shri G.Sarangan, Sr. Advocate Shri Ananathan, CA. Respondent by : Shri Pramod Singh, CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 10/08/2017 Date of pronouncement : 06/11/2017 O R D E R Per INTURI RAMA RAO, AM : This is an appeal filed by the assessee-company directed against the order of the Commissioner of…

Mallo Gems & Jewellery Ltd., (Presently Known As Lypsa Gems & Jewellery Limited), Ahmedabad vs. The CIT-II, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 316/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Respondent: Shri Vasundhara Upmanya, CIT-DR
Section 10(33)Section 14ASection 263

…aloo Gems & Jewellery Ltd. (Presently known as Lypsa Gems & Jewellery Ltd.) Vs. CIT Asst.Year –2010-11. been taken the same cannot be considered as erroneous and therefore, CIT is not justified in invoking section 263. 4.3 In the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd.295 ITR 282 (SC), it has been held that the phrase “prejudicial to the interest of revenue” in section 263 has to be read in conjecture with the expression “erroneous”. When the AO takes one of the two views permissible in law and which the commissioner does not agree and which results into loss of revenue. Unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer comp…