CIT v. Mepco Industries Ltd.

294 ITR 121High Court2007#2024 most cited

What is CIT v. Mepco Industries Ltd. authority for?

When two views are possible on an issue, the Commissioner cannot invoke jurisdiction under Section 263 merely because a different view is possible or preferred, provided the view taken by the Assessing Officer is permissible in law and not demonstrably erroneous. An order is not erroneous under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer has taken a reasonable and possible view after due inquiry.

57

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Mepco Industries Ltd. · Section 263 · Commissioner revision power · two views possible · assessment order erroneous · prejudicial to revenue · revisional jurisdiction limits · Assessing Officer view permissible · appellate power 263 · Madras High Court

Also reported as

207 CTR 462163 Taxmann 648

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 147Section 10(37)Section 145A(b)Section 148Section 151Section 56(2)(viii)

Issues it is cited on

section 141section 282a(1)section 80(p)section 80(p)(2)section 194lasection 80(p)(2)(d)section 145a(b)section 145bsection 45(5)section 57(iv)section 56(2)(viii)section 80p(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Mepco Industries Ltd.

Shri Nehrunagar Co-Op. Housing Society, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(5), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 507/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.507/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Hearing) Shri Nehrunagar Co.Op. Housing Vs. The Ito, Society, Ward – 1(3)(5), Umang Hall, Nehrunagar Society, Surat Ichchanath Road, Surat – 395007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabas2271H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 57Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…t him to take the order in revision, it if further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of revision is not valid. (emphasis added by us). Further, Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Mepco Industries Ltd., (2007) 207 CTR 462 (Madras) held that when two views are possible on an issue and it is not the case of the Commissioner that the view taken by Assessing Officer is not permissible in law, Commissioner cannot invoke his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. (emphasis added by us) 14. As we have noted above the assessing officer has made enquiries on the allowa…

Shri Nehrunagar Co-Op. Housing Society, Surat vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-1(3)(5), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 506/SRT/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.506/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Physical Hearing) Shri Nehrunagar Co.Op. Housing Vs. The Ito, Society, Ward – 1(3)(5), Umang Hall, Nehrunagar Society, Surat Ichchanath Road, Surat – 395007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabas2271H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…t him to take the order in revision, it if further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of revision is not valid. (emphasis added by us). Further, Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Mepco Industries Ltd., (2007) 207 CTR 462 (Madras) held that when two views are ITA.506/SRT/2023/AY.2020-21 Shri Nehrunagar Co.Op. Housing Society possible on an issue and it is not the case of the Commissioner that the view taken by Assessing Officer is not permissible in law, Commissioner cannot invoke his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. (emphasis added by us) 14. As we hav…

Shri Nehrunagar Co. Op Housing Society, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(5), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 478/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.478/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Shri Nehrunagar Co.Op. Housing Vs. The Ito, Society, Ward – 1(3)(5), Umang Hall, Nehrunagar Society, Surat Ichchanath Road, Surat – 395007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabas2271H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 274Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…t him to take the order in revision, it if further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of revision is not valid. (emphasis added by us). Further, Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Mepco Industries Ltd., (2007) 207 CTR 462 (Madras) held that when two views are possible on an issue and it is not the case of the Commissioner that the view taken by Assessing Officer is not permissible in law, Commissioner cannot invoke his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. (emphasis added by us) 14. As we have noted above the assessing officer has made enquiries on the allowa…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Surat vs. Pandesara Green Environment Water Welfare Coop. Society Limited, Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 246/SRT/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 194A(3)(v)Section 254(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…the order in revision, it if further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of revision is not valid. (emphasis added by us). Further, Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Mepco Industries Ltd. [2007] 163 Taxman 648/294 ITR 121 (Madras) held that when two views are possible on an issue and it is not the case of the Commissioner that the view taken by Assessing Officer is not permissible in law, Commissioner cannot invoke his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. (emphasis added by us) 14. As we have noted above the assessing officer has made enquiries on the allowa…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Surat vs. Pandesara Green Environment Water Welfare Coop. Society Limited, Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 245/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 194A(3)(v)Section 254(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…the order in revision, it if further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of revision is not valid. (emphasis added by us). Further, Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Mepco Industries Ltd. [2007] 163 Taxman 648/294 ITR 121 (Madras) held that when two views are possible on an issue and it is not the case of the Commissioner that the view taken by Assessing Officer is not permissible in law, Commissioner cannot invoke his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. (emphasis added by us) 14. As we have noted above the assessing officer has made enquiries on the allowa…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Surat vs. Pandesara Green Environment Water Welfare Coop. Society Limited, Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 244/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 194A(3)(v)Section 254(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…the order in revision, it if further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of revision is not valid. (emphasis added by us). Further, Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Mepco Industries Ltd. [2007] 163 Taxman 648/294 ITR 121 (Madras) held that when two views are possible on an issue and it is not the case of the Commissioner that the view taken by Assessing Officer is not permissible in law, Commissioner cannot invoke his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. (emphasis added by us) 14. As we have noted above the assessing officer has made enquiries on the allowa…

Carraro India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-1, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 814/PUN/2022[F.Y.2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jul 2023

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.814/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 Carraro India Private Limited, The Principal B 2/2, Midc, Ranjangaon V Commissioner Income Karegaon, Pune – 412220. S Tax-1, Pune. Pan: Aaacc 5292 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Mutha – Ar Revenue By Shri Ganesh Bare - Cit Date Of Hearing 26/06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25/07/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-1 Dated 15.09.2022 For A.Y. 2017-18 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Appeal Against Order Passed By Pr. Cit U/S 263 Of The Act Ay 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…nt to conferring some 6 Carraro India Private Limited [A] kind of an appellate power in the revisional authority. This is a course of action that must be desisted from.” 8.2 The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v/s Mepco Industries Ltd. 294 ITR 121 (Madras) held as under : Quote, “8. Therefore, on the facts of the case, when two views are possible and it is not the case of the Revenue that the view taken by the Assessing Officer is not permissible in law, the CIT is not justified in invoking the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. ” Unquote. 8.3 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the…

Shree Madhi Vibhag Khand Udyog Sahakari Mandli Ltd., Bardoli vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 233/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shree Madhi Vibhag Khand Udyog Pr.C.I.T.-1 Sahakari Mandli Ltd., Room No. 123, 1St Floor, Vs. P.O. Box No. 5, At & Post- Madhi, Aayakar Bhavan, Tal: Bardoli, Surat-394340. Majuragate, Surat. Pan: Aaaas 4732 J Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 80P(2)(d)

…t him to take the order in revision, it if further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of revision is not valid. (emphasis added by us). Further, Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT Vs Mepco Industries Ltd., (2007) 207 CTR 462 (Madras) held that when two views are possible on an issue and it is not the case of the Commissioner that the view taken by Assessing Officer is not permissible in law, Commissioner cannot invoke his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. (emphasis added by us) 14. As we have noted above the assessing officer has made enquiries on the allowa…

M/S Sukhwani Promotors and Builders, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Central), Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 301/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.301/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S.Sukhwani Promoters & The Principal Builders, Vs Commissioner Of Income 208/2A, Near Swaminathan Tax, (Central), Pune. Clinic, Station Road, Pimpri, Pune – 411018. Pan: Abrfs 1253 P Assessee/ Appellant Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Jitendra Jain – Ar Revenue By Shri Sardar Singh Meena – Dr Date Of Hearing 16/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax(Central), Pune Dated 24.03.2022 Under Section 263 Of The Act For A.Y.2017-18. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : “1 & 2. Pcit Erred In Passing The Order U/S 263 Of The Act Which Is Bad In Law, Illegal, Ultra-Virus, In Excess Of And/Or In Want Of Jurisdiction & Otherwise Void. M/S.Sukhwani Promoters & Builders [A]

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 23Section 263Section 40

…uation where two views are possible would really amount to conferring some kind of an appellate power in the revisional authority. This is a course of action that must be desisted from.” 5.3 The Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT v/s Mepco Industries Ltd. 294 ITR 121 (Madras) held as under : Quote, “8. Therefore, on the facts of the case, when two views are possible and it is not the case of the Revenue that the view taken by the Assessing Officer is not permissible in law, the CIT is not justified in invoking the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. ” Unquote. 5.4 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the…

The Government E Co-Operative Society Ltd., Bharuch vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Vadodara-1, Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 126/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.126/Srt/2023 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Virtual Court) The Government E Co- Principal Commissioner Of Operative Society Ltd./, Income Tax, Vadodara-1, Vs First Floor, Government Room No.214, 2Nd Floor, Sevasadan, Bhag-2, B/H Aaykar Bhawan, Race Course Pwd Office, Bharuch- Circle, Vadodara-390007 392001 Pan No. Aaalt 0832 D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…the order in revision, it if further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of revision is not valid. (emphasis added by us). Further, Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Mepco Industries Ltd. [2007] 163 Taxman 648/294 ITR 121 (Madras) held that when two views are possible on an issue and it is not the case of the Commissioner that the view taken by Assessing Officer is not permissible in law, Commissioner cannot invoke his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. (emphasis added by us) 14. As we have noted above the assessing officer has made enquiries on the allowa…

M/S Shriram Properties Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT-Central1, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 431/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 431/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. Ananthan, CA & Ms. Lalitha. RFor Respondent: Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

…housing Corpn. (292 ITR 310). • The Punjab and Haryana High Court followed the above decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nahar Exports Ltd. (173 Taxman 3 P & H). • The jurisdictional Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mepco Industries Ltd. (294 ITR 121) has held that the order to be revised under section 263 should not only be erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of revenue. It held that where two views are possible order cannot be termed as erroneous. The powers under section 263 cannot be exercised merely because a different view is possible - SC dismissed the SLP against 259 ITR 50…

M/S Good Earth Fertilizers Company P Ltd [Chemikas Speciality LLP], Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward - 2[2], Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 424/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.424/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Good Earth Fertilizers- The Income Tax Officer, Co. P. Ltd., Corporate Ward-2(2), (Now Known As Chemikas Chennai. Specialty Llp), No.2, North Crescent Road, T. Nagar,Chennai-600 017. [Pan:Aasfg 6012 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.R.Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

…housing Corpn. (292 ITR 310). • The Punjab and Haryana High Court followed the above decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nahar Exports Ltd. (173 Taxman 3 P & H). • The jurisdictional Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mepco Industries Ltd. (294 ITR 121) has held that the order to be revised under section 263 should not only be erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of revenue. It held that where two views are possible order cannot be termed as erroneous. The powers under section 263 cannot be exercised merely because a different view is possible - SC dismissed the SLP against 259 ITR 50…

Navapura Urban Co-Op Credit & Consumer Society Ltd., Surat vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 353/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Navapura Urban Co-Op Credit & A.C.I.T., Consumer Society Ltd., Circle 1(2), Vs. 9/572, Siddhi, Kotsafil Main Road, Surat. Surat-395002 (Gujarat) Pan No. Aaaan 0539 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

…the order in revision, it if further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of revision is not valid. (emphasis added by us). Further, Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Mepco Industries Ltd. [2007] 163 Taxman 648/294 ITR 121 (Madras) held that when two views are possible on an issue and it is not the case of the Commissioner that the view taken by Assessing Officer is not permissible in law, Commissioner cannot invoke his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. (emphasis added by us) 14. As we have noted above the assessing officer has made enquiries on the allowa…

Vapi Merchant Saving & Credit Co. Op. Society Ltd., Vapi vs. The PCIT, Valsad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 107/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.107/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Court Hearing) Vapi Merchant Saving & Credit Co. Vs. The Pcit, Valsad. Op. Society, 130, 1St Floor Varun Complex, Opp. Reliance Super Market, Gidc, Vapi – 396195. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaav3925E

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…the order in revision, it if further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of revision is not valid. (emphasis added by us). Further, Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Mepco Industries Ltd. [2007] 163 Taxman 648/294 ITR 121 (Madras) held that when two views are possible on an issue and it is not the case of the Commissioner that the view taken by Assessing Officer is not permissible in law, Commissioner cannot invoke his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. (emphasis added by us) 14. As we have noted above the assessing officer has made enquiries on the allowa…

Vapi Merchant Saving & Credit Co. Op. Society Ltd., Vapi vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 251/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Surat30 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Vapi Marchant Saving & Credit I.T.O., Cooperative Society Limited, E-Assessment Centre, Vs. Office No. 130, First Floor, Varun Delhi. Complex, Opp. Reliance Super Market Gide, Vapi (Gujarat). Pan No. Aaaav 3925 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

…the order in revision, it if further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of revision is not valid. (emphasis added by us). Further, Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Mepco Industries Ltd. [2007] 163 Taxman 648/294 ITR 121 (Madras) held that when two views are possible on an issue and it is not the case of the Commissioner that the view taken by Assessing Officer is not permissible in law, Commissioner cannot invoke his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. (emphasis added by us) 14. As we have noted above the assessing officer has made enquiries on the allowa…

The Thanjavur District Co Op Milk Producers Union Limited, Thanjavur vs. ACIT, Circle2(1), Trichy

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Allowed

ITA 404/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.404/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Thanjavur District Co Op The Principal Milk Producers Union Limited, Vs Commissioner Of Income No.1, Nanjikottai Road, Tax-1, Madurai. Thanjavur – 613006. Pan: Aaaat 0224 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By K.Meenakshisundaram - Itp Revenue By Shri M.Rajan – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Appellant Assessee Against The Order U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Act) Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Madurai-1, Dated 26/03/2022 For A.Y. 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 26/3/2022 Received By The Appellant On 1/4/2022 Is Objected To On The Following Grounds Of Appeal. 1. The Learned Principal Commissioner Madurai Erred In Setting Aside The Valid Order Passed By The Assisstant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-2(1) Trichy Dated 5/11/2019 For The Assessment Year 2017- 2018 Under Section 263 On Mere Assumptions & Presumptions That The Order Had Been Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 2. The Learned Principal Commissioner Misdirected Himself That The Valid Order Passed By The Assisstant Commissioner Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue Simply For The Reason That The

Section 263Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(e)

…wo views are possible would really amount to conferring some kind of an appellate power in the revisional authority. This is a course of action that must be desisted from.” 5.2 The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v/s Mepco Industries Ltd. 294 ITR 121 (Madras) held as under : ITA No.404/RPR/2022 for A.Y. 2017-18 The Thanjavur District Co. Op Milk Producers Union Ltd.,[A] Quote, “8. Therefore, on the facts of the case, when two views are possible and it is not the case of the Revenue that the view taken by the Assessing Officer is not permissible in law, the CIT is not justified in invoking t…

M/S Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle 3 [1], Chennai

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

ITA 353/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 353/Chny/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Tamilnadu State The Acit, Marketing Corporation Ltd., Vs. Corporate Circle 3(1), Cmda Tower, Ii, Iv Floor, Chennai. Gandhi Irwin Bridge Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. Pan: Aaact 2964P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Revision Order Passed U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-3 In Revision No.Pcit, Chennai-3/Revision-263/100000339483/2022 Dated 31.03.2022. The Assessment Was Framed By The Acit, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2014-15 U/S.143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Revision Order Passed By Pcit By Holding The Assessment Framed As Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue On Account Of Value Added Tax Paid By Assessee & Claimed As Deduction U/S.37 R.W.S. 43B Of The Act & Allowed.

For Appellant: Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 40

…favour of the Assessee), and the Assessing Officer has taken one possible view, the provisions of sec 263 will not apply as held by the Hon 'hie Supreme Court & numerous High Courts : Malabar Industrial Co Ltd v CIT 243 ITR 83 SC CIT Vs Mepco Industries Ltd 294 ITR 121 (Mad) CIT v Max India Ltd 295 ITR 282 SC In the light of the above submissions we request your good self to kindly drop the revision proceedings initiated vide notice u/s.263 dated 18.03.2020 proposing to disallow VAT u/s. 40(a)(iib) of the Act and oblige. If your good self require any further clarification, we shall be happy to provide the same…

Sr Trust, Madurai vs. PCIT(Central), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 213/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Respondent: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan
Section 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी वी. दुगा" राव, माननीय "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथा, माननीय लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.213/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s.S.R.Trust, v. The Principal Commissioner- Lake Area, Melur Road, of Income Tax (Central), Madurai-625 107. Chennai-2. [PAN: AACTS 0376 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by Mr.B.Ramakrishnan, CA ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : M…

Shree Madhi Surag Staff Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 220/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Surat19 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.220/Srt/2021 Assessment Years: (2017-18) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shree Madhi Sugar Staff Co-Op Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Credit Society Ltd. Madhi Ta: Vs. Central Processing Centre (Cpc), Bardoli, Surat-394340. Bengaluru-560500 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaas 3360 C अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(d)

…8 Shree Madhi Sugar Staff Co-Op Credit Society Ltd. when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice revision is not valid, (emphasis added by us). Further. Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Mepco Indiist Ltd. 12007] 163 Taxman 648/294 ITR 121 (Madras) held that when two views are possible on an issue and is not the case of the Commissioner that the view taken by Assessing Officer is not permissible in law, Commissioner cannot invoke his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. (emphasis added by us) 14. As we have noted above the assessing officer has made enquiries on the allowabil…

Abrama Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited, Na

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 178/SRT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.178/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) Abrama Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd., At V Income Tax Department, Navsari & Po. Abrama, Tal. Jalalpore, Dist. Circle, Navsari S. Navsari-396 445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaaa 1075 G (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sujesh Suratwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Chandnani, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…the order in revision, it if further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of revision is not valid. (emphasis added by us). Further, Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Mepco Industries Ltd. [2007] 163 Taxman 648/294 ITR 121 (Madras) held that when two views are possible on an issue and it is not the case of the Commissioner that the view taken by Assessing Officer is not permissible in law, Commissioner cannot invoke his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. (emphasis added by us) 14. As we have noted above the assessing officer has made enquiries on the allowa…