CIT v. Max India Ltd.

388 ITR 81High Court2016#1674 most cited
68

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 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.

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl Ciat 2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 120/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 43BSection 80

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO. 120/MUM/2013 (A.Y: 2008-09) Tata Chemicals Ltd v. ACIT-2(3) 24, HomiMody Street Aayakar Bhavan Bombay House, Fort M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Mumbai- 400001 PAN: AAACT4059M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Nitesh Joshi Department Represented by : Shri Rignesh Das Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 21.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 10.11.2023 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against…

Heart Foundation of India, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax-Central, Pune

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1524/MUM/2023[2023-24]Status: PendingITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2023-24

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 12ASection 143(3)

…1 ITA 1524/Mum/2023 Heart Foundation of India IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE VIKAS AWASTHY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND MS. PADMAVATHY S. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.1524/Mum/2023 Heart Foundation of India vs Commissioner of Income Tax- 5th Floor, Hemdil, Linking Road Central, Pune Bodhi Tower, Aaykar Sadan, 6th Santacruz (West), Mumbai AAAAH0500R Floor 548/2b, Gultekadi, Salisbury Park, Pune 411 037 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Dr. K Shivram A/w Mr. Sashi Bekal Department represented by Smt.Madhumalti Ghosh, CIT DR Date of hearing 12-07-2023 Date of pronouncem…

Dcdc Health Services Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 9525/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2023AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 41

…issed [255 Taxman171 (SC) ] • South Indian Bank Ltd Vs CIT. reported in 438 ITR 1 (SC) 130 taxmann.com 178(SC) • CIT VS Suzlon Energy Ltd. reported in 354 ITR 630 (Guj.) • CIT Vs Microlabs Ltd. reported in 383 ITR 490 (Kar) • CIT Vs Max India Ltd. reported in 388 ITR 81 (P&H)” 9. Further it is found from the record that for the Financial Year 2015-16 the total amount of interest paid/payable on cash credit facility and other was Rs. 19,81,563/- and total amount of interest income earned by the assessee in the form of interest on loans bank deposits and others was 25,53,248/- the Ld. AR brought to our notice…

DCIT, C-11(1), New Delhi vs. Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1982/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 40a

…exus of borrowed funds with investments: - South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT: 438 ITR 1 (SC) - Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. VS. DCIT: 394 ITR 449(SC) - Pr. CIT vs. GMM Pfaulder Ltd.: ITA No. 506 of 2017 dated 31.07.2017 (Guj) - CIT v. Max India Ltd.: 388 ITR 81 (P&H) - CIT vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd.:[2013] 215 Taxman 272 (Gujarat) - CIT vs. M/s. Ashok Commercial Enterprises: ITA No. No.2985 of 2009 (Bom) - Lubi Submeribles Ltd.: ITANo.868 of 2010 (Guj) - CIT vs. K. Raheja Corporation Pvt Ltd: ITA No. 1260 of 2009 - Gujarat State Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd : Tax Appeal No. 82 of 2013 (Guj HC) - Hero Honda…

Global Health Research and Management Institute, Udaipur vs. Pr. CIT(Central), Jaipur

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

ITA 397/JODH/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 115BSection 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 153A

…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 para- meters. 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…

Mahadevia Charitable Trust, Ahmedabad vs. Pr. CIT(Central), Jaipur

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

ITA 396/JODH/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 153A

…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 para- meters. 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…

Shri Jagpal Singh, Fatehbad vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee

ITA 202/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Mohan Jain, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Vivek Nangia, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…umption of jurisdiction tantamount to change of opinion which is not permissible under law. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-I Vs. Max India Limited, [2016] 388 ITR 81 (P&H). 4. BECAUSE the impugned order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act is bad in law as the same has been passed without affording proper opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. 5. BECAUSE the return of income filed on 22.08.2011 having been accepted and there being no tangible material, the proceedings initiated u/s 147/148 of the Ac…

Sh. Jagtar Singh, Fatehabad vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee

ITA 201/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Mohan Jain, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Vivek Nangia, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…umption of jurisdiction tantamount to change of opinion which is not permissible under law. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-I Vs. Max India Limited, [2016] 388 ITR 81 (P&H). 4. BECAUSE the impugned order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act is bad in law as the same has been passed without affording proper opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. 5. BECAUSE the return of income filed on 22.08.2011 having been accepted and there being no tangible material, the proceedings initiated u/s 147/148 of the Ac…

M/S Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ACIT, C-7, Ludhiana

The appeals stand allowed for

ITA 1162/CHANDI/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Navdeep Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…assessee by the following judicial precedents :- a. Bright Enterprises (P) Ltd Vs. CIT 381 ITR 107(PB) b. DCIT Vs. Rice Auto Industries.ita No. 800/Chandi/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 c. CIT Vs. Kapsons Associates (2016) 381 ITR 204 (Pb) d. CIT Vs. Max India (2016) 388 ITR 81 (Pb) e. CIT Vs. Max India LTD. 398 ITR 209 (Pb) f. CIT Vs. Reliance Ind. Ltd 410 ITR 466 (SC) 4.2 With respect to ground No.3 in assessment year 2012-13, it was submitted that this ground challenges the disallowance of interest of Rs. 41,96,383/- pertaining to Cash Credit account for purchase of fixed assets. Similarly, in A.Y. 2013-12, ground…

M/S Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ACIT, C-7, Ludhiana

The appeals stand allowed for

ITA 1161/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Navdeep Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…assessee by the following judicial precedents :- a. Bright Enterprises (P) Ltd Vs. CIT 381 ITR 107(PB) b. DCIT Vs. Rice Auto Industries.ita No. 800/Chandi/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 c. CIT Vs. Kapsons Associates (2016) 381 ITR 204 (Pb) d. CIT Vs. Max India (2016) 388 ITR 81 (Pb) e. CIT Vs. Max India LTD. 398 ITR 209 (Pb) f. CIT Vs. Reliance Ind. Ltd 410 ITR 466 (SC) 4.2 With respect to ground No.3 in assessment year 2012-13, it was submitted that this ground challenges the disallowance of interest of Rs. 41,96,383/- pertaining to Cash Credit account for purchase of fixed assets. Similarly, in A.Y. 2013-12, ground…

JCIT (OSD), Circle 14, Pune vs. Kumar Builder Mumbai Realty Private Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 22/PUN/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Abhinay Kumbhar &
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 43B

…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 considered opinion that the High Courts have correctly interpreted the scope of section 14A of the Act in their decisions favouring…

JCIT (OSD), Circle 14, Pune vs. Kumar Urban Development Private Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 21/PUN/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Abhinay Kumbhar &
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 43B

…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 considered opinion that the High Courts have correctly interpreted the scope of section 14A of the Act in their decisions favouring…

JCIT (OSD), Circle 14, Pune vs. Kumar Urban Development Private Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 20/PUN/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Abhinay Kumbhar &
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 43B

…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 considered opinion that the High Courts have correctly interpreted the scope of section 14A of the Act in their decisions favouring…

ACIT, Circle-10(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Philips Carbon Black Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2628/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

…in share and securities were made out of own interest free by relying the decision of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340), CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (383 ITR 529)(Bom-HC), CIT vs. UTI Bank Ltd. (32 taxmann.com 270) (Guj-HC) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (388 ITR 81) and assessee’s own case in ITA Nos. 1273 &1274/Kol/2015 for AYs. 2009-10 & 2010-11. So far as the disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii) was concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding that only those investments are required to be considered which yielded exempt income during the year by following the ratio laid down by c…

M/S Champion Commercial Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-10(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1664/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 14A

…Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in 383 ITR 529 (Bom-HC), decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. UTI Bank Ltd. reported in [2013] 32 taxmann.com 282 (Gujarat-HC) and the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Max India Ltd 388 ITR 81 (P&H HC). Respectfully following the ratio laid down in the above decisions, we are inclined to set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the disallowance of Rs. 22,21,318/- as made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii). 5. Additional ground raised by the assessee is not pressed at the time of hearing. Therefore the same…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 6, Pune vs. M/S. Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2428/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Chadraker
Section 143(3)

…(SC), Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT, 383 ITR 529 (Bom.), Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd., 354 ITR 630 (Guj.) and Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd., 388 ITR 81 (P&H). 14. In the light of the above settled position, we are of the considered opinion that no disallowance of interest u/s 14A is warranted. Accordingly, this ground of appeal no.2 filed by the assessee stands allowed. We make it very clear that there is no dispute as regards to the disallowance made u/s sub-rule (iii) of Rule 8D(2) of the Act.…

Janata Sahakari Bank Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 6, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2400/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Chadraker
Section 143(3)

…(SC), Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT, 383 ITR 529 (Bom.), Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd., 354 ITR 630 (Guj.) and Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd., 388 ITR 81 (P&H). 14. In the light of the above settled position, we are of the considered opinion that no disallowance of interest u/s 14A is warranted. Accordingly, this ground of appeal no.2 filed by the assessee stands allowed. We make it very clear that there is no dispute as regards to the disallowance made u/s sub-rule (iii) of Rule 8D(2) of the Act.…

Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 6, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2641/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Chadraker
Section 143(3)

…(SC), Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT, 383 ITR 529 (Bom.), Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd., 354 ITR 630 (Guj.) and Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd., 388 ITR 81 (P&H). 14. In the light of the above settled position, we are of the considered opinion that no disallowance of interest u/s 14A is warranted. Accordingly, this ground of appeal no.2 filed by the assessee stands allowed. We make it very clear that there is no dispute as regards to the disallowance made u/s sub-rule (iii) of Rule 8D(2) of the Act.…

M/S.Sheetal Real vs. Income Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal fails and the substantial questions of law

ITA/83/2010HC Orissa08 Feb 2022

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 372A

…milar views have been expressed by other High Courts in CIT v. Suzlon Energy Ltd. MANU/GJ/0279/2013 : (2013) 354 ITR 630 (Guj), CIT v. Microlabs Ltd. MANU/KA/0526/2016 : (2016) 383 ITR 490 (Karn) and CIT v. Max India Ltd. MANU/PH/1743/2016 : (2016) 388 ITR 81 (P & H) 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 t…

Barclays Bank Plc, Mumbai vs. CIT (International Taxation)-Range-1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 827/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 263Section 37

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Amarjit Singh (JM) I.T.A. No.827/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year 2013-14) Vs. CIT(IT), Range-1 Barclays Bank PLC 9th Floor, Building No.6 17th Floor Nirlon Knowledge Park Room No.1704, Air Off. Western Express India Building Highway Nariman Point Goregaon (E) Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 63 PAN : AAACB4876G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri P.J.Pardiwala & Madhur Agarwal Department by Shri Sanjay Singh Date of Hearing 04.10.2021 Date of 03.01.2022 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- This appeal by…