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.

Reliance Money Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3259/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri B Puresh
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263Section 50

…f Supreme Court and various High Courts and Tribunals. The Assessing Officer has taken a possible view and the proceedings u/s.263 cannot be invoked. For the above proposition, the appellant relies upon the following decisions:- i. CIT v Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) ii. CIT v Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. [2015] 372 ITR 303 (Bom) iii. CIT v Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. [2011] 333 ITR 547 (Del) 30 I . T . A . N o . 3 2 5 9 / M u m / 2 0 1 7 12. The ld.AR therefore submits that the order of the Assessing Officer allowing the mark to market loss is not erroneous. (e) Purchase of equity share capital of R…

Saregama India Limited, Kolkata vs. CIT-I, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1254/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Sept 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Khaitan, ARFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…basis of the aforesaid presumption, is thus converted into a conclusive proof of the fact that the order was passed by the Assessing Officer after due application of mind. 6. He relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Max India Ltd 295 ITR 282 (SC) in which the head note is as follows :- “COMMISSIONER - REVISION - CONDITION PRECEDENT- ORDER PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 80HHC RELATING TO EXPORT PROFITS DEDUCTION WHEN TWO VIEWS ABOUT "PROFITS" WERE PREVALENT - COMMISSIONER IN 1997 PURPORTING TO EXERCISE HIS POWER OF REVISION ON GROUND THAT ORDER WAS PREJUDICIAL TO REVENUE-…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S International Tractors Ltd

ITA/1082/2005HC Delhi20 Jul 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 147Section 260ASection 80

…ave been erroneous, and the second that it should have been prejudicial to the Revenue. Except for these debatable issues, there was no justification for re-opening the assessment. Reliance was placed on Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). Mr Vohra also relied on the decisions in Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 188 (SC); CIT v. Tata Communications Internet Services Ltd. (supra); Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries v. CIT (supra); CIT v. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd (supra) and CIT v. Sunder Forging (supra) to urge that the interpretation placed on Section 8…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi IV vs. International Tractors Ltd

ITA/690/2008HC Delhi20 Jul 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 147Section 260ASection 80

…ave been erroneous, and the second that it should have been prejudicial to the Revenue. Except for these debatable issues, there was no justification for re-opening the assessment. Reliance was placed on Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). Mr Vohra also relied on the decisions in Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 188 (SC); CIT v. Tata Communications Internet Services Ltd. (supra); Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries v. CIT (supra); CIT v. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd (supra) and CIT v. Sunder Forging (supra) to urge that the interpretation placed on Section 8…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu) vs. International Tractors Limited

ITA/1189/2009HC Delhi20 Jul 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 147Section 260ASection 80

…ave been erroneous, and the second that it should have been prejudicial to the Revenue. Except for these debatable issues, there was no justification for re-opening the assessment. Reliance was placed on Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). Mr Vohra also relied on the decisions in Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 188 (SC); CIT v. Tata Communications Internet Services Ltd. (supra); Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries v. CIT (supra); CIT v. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd (supra) and CIT v. Sunder Forging (supra) to urge that the interpretation placed on Section 8…

Sanjeev Kumar Khemka, Kolkata vs. CIT-15, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1361/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 263

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

A.Kannan, Pondicherry vs. ITO, Pondicherry

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 31/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.31/Mds/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri A. Kannan, The Income Tax Officer Vadamalayan Finance, V. Ward 4, No.C-4, Thyagara Apartments, Pondicherry. 1St Main Road, Thanthai Periyar Nagar, Puducherry – 605 005. Pan : Aakpk1389E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N. Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.M. Bhusari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.04.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2017 आदेश आदेश /O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per N.R.S. Ganesan: [

For Appellant: Shri N. Quadir Hoseyn, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.M. Bhusari, CIT
Section 263Section 69

…nd of litigation. In the first round of litigation also, the Ld.AO has made enquiries and recorded his findings with regard to peak credit. Therefore exercising revisional jurisdiction for the second time U/s.263 of the Act is not called for. When the Ld.AO 295 ITR 282. Therefore the Principal Commissioner is not correct in 10 I.T.A. No.31/Mds/2017 distinguishing the judgment of the Apex Court in Max India Ltd (supra). In view of the above discussion, we are unable to uphold the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. Accordingly, the impugned revisional order is set aside and that of the AO is res…

Procter & Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT-Cir-8, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3494/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S Procter & Gamble Cit-8, Hygiene & Health Care, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ P & G Plaza, Cardinal M.K. Road, Vs. Gracias Road, Chakala, Mumbai-400020 Andheri(E), Mumbai-400099 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacp6332M

Section 263Section 80I

…was explained that in those cases, full enquiry was made by the Assessing Officer. So far as, the decision in 4 M/s Procter & Gamble Hygiene & Health Care 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) is concerned, explained that there was no elaborate discussion of facts. So far as, 295 ITR 282 (SC) is concerned, it was contended that it is against the assessee and speaking order was passed by the Ld. Commissioner. Reliance was placed upon the decision in 386 ITR 162, (2017) 77 taxman.com 285 (SC), Arvee International vs Addl. CIT 101 ITD 495 (ITAT) (Bom.) Gee Vee Enterprises vs Addl.CIT & Ors. 99 ITR 375 (Del.) and in Kapil Ratan Assoc…

American Spring & Pressing Works Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT - 12, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the stay application is dismissed

ITA 2830/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35(1)(ii)Section 45(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” Bench, Mumbai Before S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Sandeep Gosain (JM) S.A. No. 287/Mum/2017 I.T.A. No. 2830/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2011-12) M/s. American Spring & Pr. CIT-12 Pressing Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Aspee House M.K. Road Adarsh Housing Society Mumbai-400 020. B.J. Patel Road Malad West Mumbai-400 064. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAACA8979P Assessee by Shri S.C. Tiwari & Ms. Rutuja Pawar Department by Shri R.P. Meena Date of Hearing 17.5.2017 Date of Pronouncement 24.5.2017 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :- The appeal filed by the assess…

Neelamalai Agro Industries Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1224/CHNY/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 May 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Respondent: Mr.Jairam Raipura, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…iture. 5. Without prejudice to the above contention, the Commissioner of Income Tax should have found that in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Limited vs. CIT [243 ITR 83] and CIT vs. Max India Limited [295 ITR 282], where there are two possible views, the Commissioner cannot assume jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act to revise the order of the Assessing Officer which has been made after detailed enquiry. 6. It is submitted that in the light of the above submissions, the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai-IV dated 26th March 2014 passed…

Future Ideas Co Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT -9, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 3062/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainfuture Ideas Co. Ltd. Principal Cit – 9 Knowledge House, Shyam Nagar 2Nd Floor, Room No. 214 Vs. Off Jogeshwari Vikroli Link Rd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai 400060 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacf9519L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi &For Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

…ken by the AO is unsustainable in law. In support of this proportion reliance was, inter alia, placed on the following judicial pronouncements: - 9 Futre Ideas Co. Ltd. (i) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) (ii) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) (iii) CIT vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) P. Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 632 (Bom) (iv) Grasim Industry Ltd. (2010) 221 ITR 92 (Bom) 4.2.8 The learned A.R. of the assessee submitted that it is well settled that if any enquiry is conducted by the AO in assessment proceedings, it will not give jurisdiction to the CIT to pass revisionary o…

Future Corporate Resources Ltd.(Formerly Known As Simpleton Investrade Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT -9, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 3061/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainfuture Corporate Resources Ltd. Principal Cit – 9 (Formerly Simpleton Investrade P. Ltd.) 2Nd Floor, Room No. 214 Knowledge House, Shyam Nagar Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Off Jogeshwari Vikroli Link Rd. Mumbai 400020 Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai 400060 Pan – Aajcs3979E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi &For Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…enue, unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law. In support of this proportion reliance was, inter alia, placed on the following judicial pronouncements: - (i) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) (ii) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) (iii) CIT vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) P. Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 632 (Bom) (iv) Grasim Industry Ltd. (2010) 221 ITR 92 (Bom) 4.2.8 The learned A.R. of the assessee submitted that it is well settled that if any enquiry is conducted by the AO in assessment proceedings, it will 9 Futre Corporate Resources Ltd. not give jurisdictio…

Tata Motors Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Ltu, Mumbai

ITA 3519/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Dinesh VyasFor Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy-CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “ई” खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं, राम लाल नेगी राम लाल नेगी, "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं राम लाल नेगी राम लाल नेगी "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3519/Mum/2014, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Tata…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1576/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri S. K. Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 35DSection 80I

…rely a difference of opinion and hence not amenable to the revision jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act, in view of Supreme Court decision in the cases of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83(SC) as also later decision in CIT v. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC). 23. We hold therefore that CIT is not right in holding that AO failed to make enquiries or to apply his mind and allowed deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. We therefore vacate his order and restore that of the AO. It is, however, except for the construction found to be in excess built up area over 1000 sq. ft. as aforesaid and in…

The ACIT., New Delhi vs. M/S. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1254/DEL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri S. K. Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 35DSection 80I

…rely a difference of opinion and hence not amenable to the revision jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act, in view of Supreme Court decision in the cases of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83(SC) as also later decision in CIT v. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC). 23. We hold therefore that CIT is not right in holding that AO failed to make enquiries or to apply his mind and allowed deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. We therefore vacate his order and restore that of the AO. It is, however, except for the construction found to be in excess built up area over 1000 sq. ft. as aforesaid and in…

Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1248/DEL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri S. K. Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 35DSection 80I

…rely a difference of opinion and hence not amenable to the revision jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act, in view of Supreme Court decision in the cases of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83(SC) as also later decision in CIT v. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC). 23. We hold therefore that CIT is not right in holding that AO failed to make enquiries or to apply his mind and allowed deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. We therefore vacate his order and restore that of the AO. It is, however, except for the construction found to be in excess built up area over 1000 sq. ft. as aforesaid and in…

Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT CC-20, New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3193/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2004-05 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Ansal Housing & Construction Acit, Central Circle-20, Ltd., New Delhi. Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Acit, Central Circle-20, Ansal Housing & Construction New Delhi. Ltd., Ugf-15, Indraprakash Bldg., Vs. 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan : Aaaca 0377 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri S. K. Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 35DSection 80I

…rely a difference of opinion and hence not amenable to the revision jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act, in view of Supreme Court decision in the cases of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83(SC) as also later decision in CIT v. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC). 23. We hold therefore that CIT is not right in holding that AO failed to make enquiries or to apply his mind and allowed deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act. We therefore vacate his order and restore that of the AO. It is, however, except for the construction found to be in excess built up area over 1000 sq. ft. as aforesaid and in…

M/S Western Coalfields Ltd, Nagpur vs. Principal Commissioner F Income Tax-II, Nagpur

In the result this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 143/NAG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 30

…SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER.. I.T.A. No. 143/Nag/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11. M/s Western Coalfields Ltd., The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Nagpur. Vs. Nagpur. PAN AAACW1578L. Appellant. Respondent. Appellant by : Shri K.P. Dewani. Respondent by : Shri A.R. Ninawe. Date of Hearing : 20-03-2017. Date of Pronouncement : 21st March, 2017. O R D E R. PER SHAMIM YAHYA, A.M. : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Nagpur dated 10-03-2015 and pertains to assessment year 2010-11. The grounds of appeal read as under : 1. The order p…

M/S Umang Commercial Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1173/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Khaitan, Sr. Advocate & Shri S. Jhajharia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna,CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…(India) Ltd reported in (2014) 366 ITR 593 (Cal) ; (b) Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Mulchand Bagri reported in (1993) 68 Taxman 215 (Cal) ; (c) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT (Central) vs Max India Ltd reported in (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) 8 Umang Commercial Co. (P) Ltd., AY 2011-12 6.3. The ld DR argued that the ld AO simply reproduced the version and explanation of the assessee in the assessment order and that does not tantamount to making any enquiries with regard to the issue of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and hence it cannot be construed as having taken any one possi…

Reliance Corporate It Park Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 3, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2748/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2748/Mum/2015 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Reliance Corporate It Park Ltd., बनधम/ Principal Commissioner Of Maker Tower E, 7Th Floor, Income Tax-6, Vs. A Wing- Cuff Parade Mumbai- 612, Aayakar Bhavan, 400005 Mk Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aabcd7169H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. अऩीराथी की ओय से/Appellant By : Shri Arvind Sonde प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 3.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 20.3.2015, Passed By Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -3, Mumbai Under Section 263, Setting Aside The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 20.3.2013 For Passing It Afresh. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Ground No.1 (I) The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax- 3, (Hereinafter Referred To As Cit) Erred In Passing The Order Under Section 263 Of The Act, By Holding That The Assessment Order Passed By The Oy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -3(3), Mumbai (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “एच” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री अमभत शुक्रा, न्मायमक सदस्म एवं श्री याजेशकुभाय, रेखा सदस्म के सभक्ष । BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2748/Mum/2015 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Reliance Corporate IT Park Ltd., बनधम/ Principal Commissioner of Maker Tower E, 7th floor, Income Tax-6, Vs. A Wing- Cuff Parade Mumbai- 612, Aayakar Bhavan, 400005 MK Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ PAN : AABCD7169H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. अऩीराथी की ओय से/Appellant by : Shri…