CIT v. Max India Ltd.

388 ITR 81High Court2016#1674 most cited

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

Issues it is cited on

section 13a section 12aa(3)section 36(l)(iii)section 127(2)section 80m section 12ab(4)section 10(23c)(vi)cancellation of registration section 120 section 13(1)(c)business expediency section 13(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Max India Ltd.

L & T Finance Ltd ( With Which L & T Trade Com Ltd Has Since Merged), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5286/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. No. 2577/Mum/2010 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year‟S: 2003-04) L & T Finance Ltd., L & T Dcit, Circle 2(2)(4), R.No. 545, बिधम/ Vs. House, N M Marg, Ballard 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Estate Mumbai-400001. Marg, Mumbai-400020. स्थामीरेखासं./ जीआइआयसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacl5904F (अऩीराथी/Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Ms. Heena Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri. V. Vidhyadhar, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 271(1)(c)

…en if some of the assets were retained by the assessee, the applicability of the provisions of Sec. 50B would not be ousted. The Ld. D.R. further relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 68 (P&H). 8. We have heard the authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the facts of the case and are of the considered view that “Slump sale” as defined in Sec. 2(42C) means the transfer of one or more undertakings a…

H.T. Media Limited vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-IV

ITA/549/2015HC Delhi23 Aug 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 10Section 142Section 143Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 260

…argued, there was no justification for the ITAT not following its own order for the earlier AYs in the Assessee’s own case. Mr. Vohra also placed reliance on the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT, Jalandhar-I v. Max India Limited [2016] 388 ITR 81 (P&H). 22. As regards disallowance on account of administrative expenses forming subject matter of ITA No. 549 of 2015 in these appeals, Mr. Vohra submitted that the AO had not considered the written note submissions and details provided by the Assessee regarding investment and nature thereof in the assessment order. Mr. Vohra further subm…

D.C.I.T., Circle-4, Kolkata vs. M/S. Rossell India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2774/KOL/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year:2009-10 Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata V/S. M/S Rossell India Ltd. P-7, Chowringhee 21/1A/3, Darga Road, Square, Kolkata-69 Jindal Towers, Block B, 4Th Floor, Park Circus, Kolkta-700 017 [Pan Noaabcr 3736 J] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…ns of Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D. iii) Reliance in this regard is also placed on following decisions wherein it has been held that in case the appellant has sufficient owned funds no disallowance could be made by invoking Rule 8D:- CIT vs. Max India Ltd (2016) 388 ITR 81 (P&H) Raniganj Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT [ITA No. 1983 & 1984/Kol/2014 dtd. 02.09.2016] DCIT vs. EIH Ltd. (2015) ITA No. 426/Kol/2006 CIT vs. Karnataka State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (2016) 237 Taxmn 240 (Kar) CIT vs. UTI Bank Ltd. (2013) 215 Taxman 8 (Guj) ITA No.2774/Kol/2013 A.Y 2009-10 DCIT Cir-4, Kol Vs.…

Tirupati College of Technical Education Society, Jaipur vs. CIT(Exemptions), Jaipur

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

ITA 452/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sharvan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta, (CIT)

Section 10Section 143(3)

…ction 11(5) or 13 (3) or any other provisions of the Act while completing the scrutiny assessment. Copy or order is hereby enclosed. (Page No. 38 to 44) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Rajasthan and others vs Basant Agrotech India Ltd. and other 388 ITR 81(SC) 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 power the Government…

Shri Satish Jain, Indore vs. The CIT-2, Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 342/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 263

…ew of the settled law, as indicated above, the issue to be considered is whether the claim of the assessee for commission payments is deductible under the provision of the Act and is sustainable in law. 11. In the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (No.2) [2016] 388 ITR 81(P&H) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: “At this stage, we may clarify that in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) this Court has taken the view that the phrase "prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue" under s. 263 has to be read in conjunction with the expression "erroneous" order passed by the AO. Every loss of re…

M/S Hindustan Engineering & Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.D.I.T Range - 5, Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 330/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 50BSection 5O

…the sale consideration was attributed to depreciable assets or any other asset. Hence, it is a case of slump sale and not a case of itemised sale or piecemeal sale, and s. 50 cannot be applied. 32. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High court in case of Max India 319 ITR 68 held that the Tribunal held that the sale was a slump sale if it was a sale of a going concern, even if some of the assets were retained by the transferor and sections 50 and 50A of the Act were not applicable. On further appeal, the Revenue contended that the sale was a sale of block of assets the gain from which was liable to be treated as short…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ece Industries Ltd

ITA/417/2007HC Delhi24 Dec 2010

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

Section 50Section 50(2)

…lf. Particular reference was made to the following judgments: (1) R.C. Cooper Vs. Union of India [AIR 1970 SC 564]; (2) Premier Automobiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [264 ITR 193 (Bom)]; (3) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Max India Ltd. [319 ITR 68 (P & H)] (4) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Narkeshwari Prakashan Ltd. [196 ITR 438 (Bom.)] 14. We have given our due consideration to the aforesaid submissions made by counsel for the parties on either side. Before we embark on the discussion on the issue that qua for consideration and deal with our comments, we deed it proper to take…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

ITA-417/2007HC Delhi24 Dec 2010

Section 50Section 50(2)