CIT v. Max India Ltd.

Udaysingh P Bobade (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result , the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7490/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Sujaysingh P. Bobade (Huf) बनाम/ I.T.O. 19(1)(2), A-101, Amrit Chs Ltd. Piramal Chambers, V. 15 Carter Road, Parel, Mumbai - 400012 Khar (W), Mumbai-400052 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaphs9015L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

…d 21.10.2013 which has attained finality and are placed in paper book at page 89-97. The assessee-HUF relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd v. CIT in (2000) 243 ITR 83(SC) , CIT v. Max India Limited (2008) 295 ITR 282(SC) and decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Gabriel India Limited (1993)203 ITR 108(Bom. HC) and submitted that the AO in the instant case has applied his mind and adopted one of the possible and plausible view which is in-fact a correct view before passing the assessment orders and the CIT cannot substitute his view by in…

Sujaysingh P Bobade (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result , the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7490/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Sujaysingh P. Bobade (Huf) बनाम/ I.T.O. 19(1)(2), A-101, Amrit Chs Ltd. Piramal Chambers, V. 15 Carter Road, Parel, Mumbai - 400012 Khar (W), Mumbai-400052 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaphs9015L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

…d 21.10.2013 which has attained finality and are placed in paper book at page 89-97. The assessee-HUF relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd v. CIT in (2000) 243 ITR 83(SC) , CIT v. Max India Limited (2008) 295 ITR 282(SC) and decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Gabriel India Limited (1993)203 ITR 108(Bom. HC) and submitted that the AO in the instant case has applied his mind and adopted one of the possible and plausible view which is in-fact a correct view before passing the assessment orders and the CIT cannot substitute his view by in…

Neo Sports Broadcast P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (TDS), Mumbai

In the result both appeals of the assessee are allowed

…der dt. 18/3/2012; TDS u/s.194A - (which the assessee does not agree with) and not sought to be taken by CIT. Revision of order u/s 263 cannot be done if two views are possible on the issue. Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Max India Limited [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) held as under :- “The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue' has to be read in conjunction with an 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 interests of the revenue, for example, when an ITO adopts one of…

Neo Sports Broadcast P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (TDS), Mumbai

In the result both appeals of the assessee are allowed

…der dt. 18/3/2012; TDS u/s.194A - (which the assessee does not agree with) and not sought to be taken by CIT. Revision of order u/s 263 cannot be done if two views are possible on the issue. Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Max India Limited [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) held as under :- “The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue' has to be read in conjunction with an 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 interests of the revenue, for example, when an ITO adopts one of…

Shree Datta Developers, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 20, Mumbai

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

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3316/Mum/ 2015 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) बनाम/ Shree Datta Developers, Principal Commissioner Of 62/A, Pradhan Lodge, Income Tax -20, Vs. 4Th Floor, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai-400012 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थधमी रेखध सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan. :Aamfs8023P अऩीरधथी ओय से / Appellant By Shri Vishwas V Mehendale प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By Shri Rahul Raman सुनवधई की तधयीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.1.2016 घोषणध की तधयीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 3. 2.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per B R Baskaran, Am: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order 30.3.2015 Passed By The Ld. Principal Cit-20, Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2005-06. The Assessee Is Challenging The Validity Of Revision Order Passed By The Ld. Principal Cit.

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “एच” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, AM AND PAWAN SINGH, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3316/Mum/ 2015 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) बनाम/ Shree Datta Developers, Principal Commissioner of 62/A, Pradhan Lodge, Income Tax -20, Vs. 4th floor, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai-400012 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थधमी रेखध सं./जीआइआय सं./PAN. :AAMFS8023P अऩीरधथी ओय से / Appellant by Shri Vishwas V Mehendale प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent by Shri Rahul Raman सुनवधई की तधयीख / Dat…

National Jewellers, Mumbai vs. CIT 14, Mumbai

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

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3633/Mum/2012 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08) M/S National Jewellers बनाम/ Commissioner Of Income Tax –14, Laxmi House, 1St Floor, Mumbai Vs. 177/179, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai-400002. (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

…en by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law.” The principle which has been laid down in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) has been followed and explained in a 5 subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282.” 6. According to Ld A.R, the assessing officer has examined the issue during the course of assessment proceedings relating to AY 2006-07 as well as in AY 2007-08 by examining the relevant documents. We find merit in the said submissions. A perusal of the assessment order relating to AY 2006-07 would show that the assessing officer has examined…

Pahilajrai Jaikishan, Mumbai vs. DCIT 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

…l position that there can be no revision on a debatable issue. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held so in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83/109 Taxman 66. This view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282/[2008] 166 Taxman 188. In this case, the Hon'ble Summit Court held that when two views are possible and the ITO has taken one view with which the CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an & ITA No. 994/Mum/2014 erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, unless the view taken by the ITO is unsustainable in law. Adverting to t…

Crompton Greaves Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT -6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company in ITA no

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kochar"ी शैल" कुमार यादव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखाकार सद"य के सम" । आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1994/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2836/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Crompton Greaves बनाम/ Cit – 6,Mumbai, Ltd.,6Th Floor, C.G. House, 5Th Floor, V. Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 030. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacc3840K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep N. Kapasi Revenue By : Shri C.W. Angolkar सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 29-10-2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-02-2016

…anted by the facts of the case and made an assessment order which is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue by relying on the decisions in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC), in the case of CIT v. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282 (SC), CIT v. Mangal Castings, 303 ITR 23 (P&H) and CIT v. MEPCO Industries Ltd., 294 ITR 121 (Mad.). In reply to the notice dated 06.12.2012 u/s 263 of the Act, the assessee company submitted that both on merits as well as on technical grounds the assessment order dated 28.12.2010 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act by the AO was neither erroneous nor…

Asst CIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Pahilajrai Jaikishin, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1562/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

…l position that there can be no revision on a debatable issue. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held so in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83/109 Taxman 66. This view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282/[2008] 166 Taxman 188. In this case, the Hon'ble Summit Court held that when two views are possible and the ITO has taken one view with which the CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an & ITA No. 994/Mum/2014 erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, unless the view taken by the ITO is unsustainable in law. Adverting to t…

Pravin L. Manania, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) Assessment Year: 2007-08

…its claim for claiming exemption u/s 54 of the Act were duly considered and only thereafter, the assesssee’s claim for exemption u/s 54 of the Act was accepted by the AO. It was contended by the Ld. AR, replying on the decision in the case of Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282)(SC), that the AO took one possible view in the matter, with which the Ld. CIT did not agree and that this cannot render the order of assessment erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In this context, the Ld. AR also placed reliance on the decision of the co-ordinate bench of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Dhruv N. Shah (88 ITD 118) (M…

Top Class Capital Markets P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 1, Mumbai

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

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2094/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2010-11)

…aken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law.” The principle which has been laid down in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) has been followed and explained in a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282.” 8. Based on the legal principles enunciated by the Hon‟ble Courts, if we examine the facts available in the present case, we notice that the assessee‟s explanation that the club membership fee was paid for a representative of the assessee was accepted by the AO on the face of it. The documents furnished along with the reply letter furnished by…

Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Mumbai vs. DIT (E), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amit Shukla

…in holding that the AO has not considered the newly inserted proviso to section 2(15). In support of this contention, he relied 8 Slum Rehabilitation Authority upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd., reported in [2007] 295 ITR 282. Lastly, he submitted that now there are catena of decisions, wherein the Proviso to section 2(15) has been explained that “profit motive” is not a sole criteria for denying the exemption. He strongly relied upon the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of India Trading Promotion Organization vs DIT reported in [2015] 371 ITR 333, wherein the…