CIT v. Max India Ltd.

388 ITR 81High Court2016#1688 most cited
68

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Max India Ltd. · 388 ITR 81 · Section 14A · Section 12AA(3) · Section 12AB · cancellation of registration · business expediency · Section 36(1)(iii) · charitable trust registration · income tax exemptions

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 148Section 11Section 12ASection 12AA(3)Section 12AB

Issues it is cited on

section 13asection 12aa(3)section 36(l)(iii)section 127(2)section 80msection 12ab(4)section 10(23c)(vi)cancellation of registrationsection 120section 13(1)(c)business expediencysection 13(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Max India Ltd.

ASST CIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3882/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…having regard to the accounts of the assessee, is not I.T.A. No. 3680/Mum/2017 I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2017 satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure…” ⸻ (Kar.) and CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2016] 75 taxmann.com 268/388 ITR 81 (Punj. & Har.). Mr. S Ganesh the learned Senior Counsel while citing these cases from the High Courts have further pointed out that those judgments have attained finality. On reading of these judgments, we are of the considered opinion that the High Courts have correctly interpreted the scope of section 14A of the Act in their decisions favouring…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3680/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…having regard to the accounts of the assessee, is not I.T.A. No. 3680/Mum/2017 I.T.A. No. 3882/Mum/2017 satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure…” ⸻ (Kar.) and CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2016] 75 taxmann.com 268/388 ITR 81 (Punj. & Har.). Mr. S Ganesh the learned Senior Counsel while citing these cases from the High Courts have further pointed out that those judgments have attained finality. On reading of these judgments, we are of the considered opinion that the High Courts have correctly interpreted the scope of section 14A of the Act in their decisions favouring…

NIPUN MALHOTRA,MANDI vs. ITO, WARD, MANDI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 81/CHANDI/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 81/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nipun Malhotra, The Ito, 135/A, Jawahar Nagar, Vs Ward, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. Mandi (Hp). "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ablpm6589N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2026 Physical Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ents : a) ACIT Vs Janak Global Resources Pvt. Ltd. 175 ITD 365 (Chd) b) Bright Enterprises (P) Ltd Vs CIT 381 ITR 107 (P&H.) c) CIT Vs Kapson Associates 381 ITR 204 (P&H.) d) CIT Vs Max India Ltd. 398 ITR 209 (Pb.) A.Y.2013-14 5 e) CIT Vs Max India Ltd (2016) 388 ITR 81 (P&H) f) Gordrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd Vs DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC) g) CIT Vs Reliance Ind Ltd. 410 ITR 466 (SC) h) CIT v/s Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd 313 ITR 340-344 (Bom) i) CIT V/s Shapoorji Pallongi & Co 423 ITR 220 (Bom) j) Decision of ITAT Chandigarh in ITA No. 184/Chd/2015 6. The assessee has demonstrated that it has more i…

M/S KNITWELL INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1609/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1609/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year. : 2014-15 M/S Knitwell India Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Plot No. 278, Industrial Area, Vs Circle 1(1), Phase-Ii, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aacck4673L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2026 O R D E R Physical Hearing Per Raj Pal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…ollowing decisions : a) ACIT Vs Janak Global Resources Pvt. Ltd. 175 ITD 365 (Chd) b) Bright Enterprises (P) Ltd Vs CIT 381 ITR 107 (P&H.) c) CIT Vs Kapson Associates 381 ITR 204 (P&H.) d) CIT Vs Max India Ltd. 398 ITR 209 (Pb.) e) CIT Vs Max India Ltd (2016) 388 ITR 81 (P&H) f) Gordrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd Vs DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC) g) CIT Vs Reliance Ind Ltd. 410 ITR 466 (SC) h) CIT V/s Shapoorji Pallongi & Co 423 ITR 220 (Bom) i) Decision of ITAT Chandigarh in ITA No. 184/Chd/2015 These decisions are on the same line, therefore, no disallowance deserves to be upheld except a sum of Rs.1,42,842/-…

INDEPENDENT AND PUBLIC SPIRITED MEDIA FOUNDATION ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 625/BANG/2023[Nill]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : Na

For Appellant: S/Shri. A. Sheshadri, CA and Bhardwaj Sheshadri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 133A

…ancel the registration with retrospective effect, since the activities of the trust are not found to be genuine or in accordance with the objects of the trust. 53. The reliance of the assessee on the decision of State of Rajasthan v. Basant Agrotech India Ltd 388 ITR 81 (Punjab & Haryana) and Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation(Gwalior) MP Ltd (supra) with respect to bar in cancelling the registration with retrospective effect on the Page 88 of 102 ground that there is no express provision in the section is misplaced. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Industrial Infrastructure Development Co…

ADVANTAGE INDIA,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT (CENTRAL)-II, NEW DELHI

ITA 634/DEL/2019[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mehra, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT [DR]
Section 127Section 127(2)Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)

…the PCIT(C) had no jurisdiction to cancel the registration certificate once granted by him u/s 12A with retrospective effect, there being no express provision in the section. The Id AR relied on the decision of State of Rajasthan Vs Basant Agrotech India Ltd 388 ITR 81 (SC) and Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation(Gwalior) MP Ltd 403 ITR 01(SC) and Auro Lab Vs ITO (2019) 411 ITR 308(Mad). 13. Per contra, the ld DR vehemently argued that the CIT(E), u/s 127(2) of the Act, has the power to transfer the case from assessing officer who is subordinate to him, to another assessing officer who is not subor…

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S RANA POLYCOT LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1050/CHANDI/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1050/Chd/2018 &

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT, DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

…ollowing judgements: a) ACIT Vs Janak Global Resources Pvt. Ltd. 175 ITD 365 (Chd) b) Bright Enterprises (P) Ltd Vs CIT 381 ITR 107 (P&H.) c) CIT Vs Kapson Associates 381 ITR 204 (P&H.) d) CIT Vs Max India Ltd. 398 ITR 209 (Pb.) e) CIT Vs Max India Ltd (2016) 388 ITR 81 (P&H) f) Gordrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd Vs DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC) g) CIT Vs Reliance Ind Ltd. 410 ITR 466 (SC) h) CIT v/s Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd 313 ITR 340-344 (Bom) i) CIT V/s Shapoorji Pallongi & Co 423 ITR 220 (Bom) j) Decision of ITAT Chandigarh in ITA No. 184/Chd/2015 3.1 On the other hand, ld. CIT DR filed written subm…

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S RANA POLYCOT LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1015/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1050/Chd/2018 &

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT, DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

…ollowing judgements: a) ACIT Vs Janak Global Resources Pvt. Ltd. 175 ITD 365 (Chd) b) Bright Enterprises (P) Ltd Vs CIT 381 ITR 107 (P&H.) c) CIT Vs Kapson Associates 381 ITR 204 (P&H.) d) CIT Vs Max India Ltd. 398 ITR 209 (Pb.) e) CIT Vs Max India Ltd (2016) 388 ITR 81 (P&H) f) Gordrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd Vs DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC) g) CIT Vs Reliance Ind Ltd. 410 ITR 466 (SC) h) CIT v/s Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd 313 ITR 340-344 (Bom) i) CIT V/s Shapoorji Pallongi & Co 423 ITR 220 (Bom) j) Decision of ITAT Chandigarh in ITA No. 184/Chd/2015 3.1 On the other hand, ld. CIT DR filed written subm…

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S RANA POLYCOT LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1014/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1050/Chd/2018 &

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT, DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

…ollowing judgements: a) ACIT Vs Janak Global Resources Pvt. Ltd. 175 ITD 365 (Chd) b) Bright Enterprises (P) Ltd Vs CIT 381 ITR 107 (P&H.) c) CIT Vs Kapson Associates 381 ITR 204 (P&H.) d) CIT Vs Max India Ltd. 398 ITR 209 (Pb.) e) CIT Vs Max India Ltd (2016) 388 ITR 81 (P&H) f) Gordrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd Vs DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC) g) CIT Vs Reliance Ind Ltd. 410 ITR 466 (SC) h) CIT v/s Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd 313 ITR 340-344 (Bom) i) CIT V/s Shapoorji Pallongi & Co 423 ITR 220 (Bom) j) Decision of ITAT Chandigarh in ITA No. 184/Chd/2015 3.1 On the other hand, ld. CIT DR filed written subm…

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S RANA POLYCOT LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1013/CHANDI/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1050/Chd/2018 &

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT, DR
Section 36(1)(iii)

…ollowing judgements: a) ACIT Vs Janak Global Resources Pvt. Ltd. 175 ITD 365 (Chd) b) Bright Enterprises (P) Ltd Vs CIT 381 ITR 107 (P&H.) c) CIT Vs Kapson Associates 381 ITR 204 (P&H.) d) CIT Vs Max India Ltd. 398 ITR 209 (Pb.) e) CIT Vs Max India Ltd (2016) 388 ITR 81 (P&H) f) Gordrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd Vs DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC) g) CIT Vs Reliance Ind Ltd. 410 ITR 466 (SC) h) CIT v/s Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd 313 ITR 340-344 (Bom) i) CIT V/s Shapoorji Pallongi & Co 423 ITR 220 (Bom) j) Decision of ITAT Chandigarh in ITA No. 184/Chd/2015 3.1 On the other hand, ld. CIT DR filed written subm…

SINHAGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,PUNE vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 419/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoresinhagad Technical Education Society Pcit (Central), Pune Smt. Khilare Marg, Off Karve Road, Vs. Pune – 411004 Pan: Aabts9900Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora & Miss Sampada Ingale Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari - Cit Date Of Hearing : 25-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora and Miss Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari - CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 132

…settled legal position of law that Registration cannot be cancelled from retrospective effects. In this regard, the ld AR has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Rajasthan and others vs Basant Agrotech India Ltd. and other 388 ITR 81(SC) wherein it has been decided that ―only a legislation can make a low retrospective and prospectively subject justifiability and acceptability within the constitutional parameters. The subordinate legislation can be given with retrospective effect if a power in this behalf is contained in the principle Act. In the absence of such conferment of p…

M/S ORBIT RESORTS (P) LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, both appeals are allowed

ITA 342/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA, Shri Aditya Kumar,CA &For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

…lowing judgements : a) ACIT Vs Janak Global Resources Pvt. Ltd. 175 ITD 365 (Chd) b) Bright Enterprises (P) Ltd Vs CIT 381 ITR 107 (P&H.) c) CIT Vs Kapson Associates 381 ITR 204 (P&H.) d) CIT Vs Max India Ltd. 398 ITR 209 (Pb.) e) CIT Vs Max India Ltd (2016) 388 ITR 81 (P&H) ITA No.341 & 342/CHD/2019 A.Y.2007-08 & 2012-13 4 f) Gordrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd Vs DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC) g) CIT Vs Reliance Ind Ltd. 410 ITR 466 (SC) h) CIT v/s Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd 313 ITR 340-344 (Bom) i) CIT V/s Shapoorji Palongi & Co 423 ITR 220 (Bom) j) Decision of ITAT Chandigarh in ITA No. 184/Chd/2015…

M/S ORBIT RESORTS (P) LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ADDL. CIT, R-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both appeals are allowed

ITA 341/CHANDI/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA, Shri Aditya Kumar,CA &For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

…lowing judgements : a) ACIT Vs Janak Global Resources Pvt. Ltd. 175 ITD 365 (Chd) b) Bright Enterprises (P) Ltd Vs CIT 381 ITR 107 (P&H.) c) CIT Vs Kapson Associates 381 ITR 204 (P&H.) d) CIT Vs Max India Ltd. 398 ITR 209 (Pb.) e) CIT Vs Max India Ltd (2016) 388 ITR 81 (P&H) ITA No.341 & 342/CHD/2019 A.Y.2007-08 & 2012-13 4 f) Gordrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd Vs DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC) g) CIT Vs Reliance Ind Ltd. 410 ITR 466 (SC) h) CIT v/s Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd 313 ITR 340-344 (Bom) i) CIT V/s Shapoorji Palongi & Co 423 ITR 220 (Bom) j) Decision of ITAT Chandigarh in ITA No. 184/Chd/2015…

NAHAR INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES LTD,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 857/CHANDI/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Navdeep Sharma. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

…ixed assets as well as incurrence of expenditure towards capital field. For fortifying our view, we put reliance upon the judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Reliance Utilities 313 ITR Page 340, CIT Vs Max India Ltd. A.Y.2010-11 3 388 ITR 81 (P&H) and Bright Enterprises Vs CIT 381 ITR 107. 4. In view of the above, the disallowance made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) is deleted. 5. In result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 26.03.2025. (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) VICE PRESIDENT “Poonam” आदेश क" "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/…

SUNIL GUPTA,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-55(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 634/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraadvantage India Vs. The Pr. C.I.T 101-102, Oriental House Central - 2 Gulmohar Enclave New Delhi New Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mehra, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT [DR]
Section 127Section 127(2)Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)

…he PCIT(C) had no jurisdiction to cancel the registration certificate once granted by him u/s 12A with retrospective effect, there being no express provision in the section. The ld AR relied on the decision of State of Rajasthan Vs Basant Agrotech India Ltd 388 ITR 81 (SC) and Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation(Gwalior) MP Ltd 403 ITR 01(SC) and Auro Lab Vs ITO (2019) 411 ITR 308(Mad). Page 8 of 61 Advantage India Vs.PC.I.T 13. Per contra, the ld DR vehemently argued that the CIT(E), u/s 127(2) of the Act, has the power to transfer the case from assessing officer who is subordinate to him, to…

MIKUNI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ALWAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PCIT,

12. In view of the above discussion, we find merit in this appeal, when the assessment order dated 27

ITA 745/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: passing the impugned order, Learned PCIT issued notice to the assessee, as Learned PCIT found that the Assessing Officer, while framing the above said assessment and the making addition, did not initiate penalty proceedings 270A of the Act. Learned PCIT was of the view that penalty proceedings were to be initiated under the said provision on account of misreporting of income, which came to be added by the Assessing Officer to the total income of the assessee company. It being a Transfer Pri

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Agarwal, C.A. (Through V.C.) &For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 194C(5)Section 263Section 270ASection 92CSection 94C

…Court in the case of CIT vs. D.P. Karai [266 ITR 113].  Copy of decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers [259 ITR 502]  Copy of decision of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India Limited [388 ITR 81].  Copy of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India Limited [295 ITR 282].  Copy of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (395 ITR 1].  Copy of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. [343 ITR 329]. Herein, as noticed abo…

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 is partly allowed

ITA 4952/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm A.Y.2006-07 [ By Assessee] &

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

…have been expressed by other High Courts in CIT v. Suzlon Energy Ltd. [2013] 33 taxmann.com 157/215 Taxman 272/354 ITR 630 (Guj.), CIT v. Microlabs Ltd. [2017] 79 taxmann.com 365/[2016] 383 ITR 490 ` (Kar.) and CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2016] 75 taxmann.com 268/388 ITR 81 (Punj. & Har.). Mr. S Ganesh the learned Senior Counsel while citing these cases from the High Courts have further pointed out that those judgments have attained finality. On reading of these judgments, we are of the considered opinion that the High Courts have correctly interpreted the scope of section 14A of the Act in their decisions favouring…

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

ITA 3868/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

…pressed by other High Courts in CIT v. Suzlon Energy Ltd. [2013] 33 taxmann.com 157/215 Taxman 272/354 ITR 630 (Guj.), CIT v. Microlabs Ltd. [2017] 79 taxmann.com 365/[2016] 383 ITR 490 Page | 39 (Kar.) and CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2016] 75 taxmann.com 268/388 ITR 81 (Punj. & Har.). Mr. S Ganesh the learned Senior Counsel while citing these cases from the High Courts have further pointed out that those judgments have attained finality. On reading of these judgments, we are of the considered opinion that the High Courts have correctly interpreted the scope of section 14A of the Act in their decisions favo…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2731/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Dcit, Vs Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., Central Circle-20, Ugf-15, Indraprastha Building, 21, New Delhi. Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan-Aaaca0377R Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

…various benches of the Tribunal have, in the following decisions, deleted disallowance made under section 14A of the Act: - CIT v. UTI Bank Ltd: 215 Taxman 8 (Guj.)[SLP dismissed vide order dated 07.02.2014 in Civil Appeal No. 468/2014 - CIT v. Max India Ltd: 388 ITR 81 (P&H) - H.T. Media Limited v. PCIT: 399 ITR 576 (Delhi) - HDFC Bank Ltd v. DCIT: 366 ITR 505 (Bom) - HDFC Bank Ltd v. DCIT: 383 ITR 529 (Bom) - CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd : 380 ITR 652 (P&H) - Lubi Submersibles Ltd.: ITA No.868 of 2010 (Guj.) - CIT Y. Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd. : 352 ITR 583 (Guj) - CIT v. Torrent Power Ltd.: 363 ITR 474 (…

AGARWAL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 812/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. K. Haritha, CIT(DR) and Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 37Section 37(1)

…ws have been expressed by other High Courts in CIT v. Suzlon Energy Ltd. [2013] 33 taxmann.com 157/215 Taxman 272/354 ITR 630 (Guj.), CIT v. Microlabs Ltd. [2017] 79 taxmann.com 365/[2016] 383 ITR 490 (Kar.) and CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2016] 75 taxmann.com 268/388 ITR 81 (Punj. & Har.). Mr. S Ganesh the learned Senior Counsel while citing these cases from the High Courts have further pointed out that those judgments have attained finality. On reading of these judgments, we are of the Page 6 of 13 ITA 812 Agarwal Industries P Ltd considered opinion that the High Courts have correctly interpreted the scope of sect…

Showing 1–20 of 68 · Page 1 of 4