How many judgments cite CIT v. Mepco Industries Ltd.?

57 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Mepco Industries Ltd. (294 ITR 121), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Mepco Industries Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 263, Section 147, Section 10(37), Section 145A(b), Section 148.

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.

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

Issues it is cited on

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

Judgments citing CIT v. Mepco Industries Ltd.

M/S Althan Bhatar Urban Co.Op Credit Society Ltd/, Surat vs. Pr.CIT-1, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 151/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.151/Srt/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S Althan Bhatar Urban Co-Op. Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Surat-1, 123, 1St Floor, Aayakar Credit Society Ltd., Shop No. 5, Anand Apartment Nr. Jariwala Stores, Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Bhatar Road, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaaa 7721 R (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.P. Meena, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 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 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 allowab…

Niagara Financial Consultants P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, City-6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 762/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.762/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16) बनधम/ Niagara Financial Pr. Cit, City-6 Room No.501, 5Th Floor, Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C-201, Kailash Explanade, Aayakar Bhavan, Lbs Marg, Opp. Sheryas Maharshi Karve Road, Theatre, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400086. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn1918R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala Revenue By: Shri Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 30.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-06, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2015-16 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-06 Has Invoked The Provisions U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - 2. 1. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Iii Law, Ld. Pr. Cit Erred In Passing The Revision Order U/S.263 Though The Reassessment Order Passed U/S.143(3) Is Not Erroneous Anti In So Far Is Not Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Revenue 2.0 The Ld. Pr. Cit, Before Setting Asides The Assessment Ordev.De Novo On Invoking Sec 263(I), Ought To Have Considered The Understated Facts, Being;

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.762/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16) बनधम/ Niagara Financial Pr. CIT, City-6 Room No.501, 5th Floor, Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C-201, Kailash Explanade, Aayakar Bhavan, LBS Marg, Opp. Sheryas Maharshi Karve Road, Theatre, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400086. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AACCN1918R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala Revenue by: Shri Mahesh Akhade (DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date…

Bardoli Janta Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Bardoli vs. Pr.CIT-2, Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed on the primary submissions of the ld AR for the assessee

ITA 302/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Bardoli Janta Cooperative Credit The Principal Commissioner Of Society Ltd., Income Tax-2, Surat. Vs 94, Mudit Palace, Nr. Janta Society, Station Road, Bardoli, Surat – 394 601. Pan: Aaaab 1355 J Email Id; Srshethtax@Gmail.Com Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

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

…ade full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of 7 ITA No’s.302/SRT/2019 (AY 2014-15) Bardoli Janta Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., 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…

Satyam Textile Park, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 91/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Oct 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263Section 271DSection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.90 & 91/SRT/2021 (AY 2016-17 & 2017-18) (Hearing in Virtual Court) Satyam Textile Park, The Principal Block No.430,Moje Hathoda, Commissioner of Income Vs TA-Magrol, Surat – 394380. Tax (Central), Surat. PAN: ACXFS 1576 L Assessee / appellant Revenue /respondent Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah – CA Revenue by Shri Ritesh Mishra – CIT-DR Date of hearing 15.09.2021 Date of pronouncement 25.10.2021 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMB…

Satyam Textile Park, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 90/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263Section 271DSection 40

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 94/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.92, 93 & 94/SRT/2021 A.Y: 2014-15 to 2016-17 (Hearing in Virtual Court) M/s.Amrut Sarovar, The Principal Commissioner Block No. 514-515, of Income Tax – Central, Vs. Opposite Girnar Hotel, Surat. At & PO Kather, Taluka-Kamrej, Surat. PAN: ABGFA 2065 C Applicant /assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah – CA Revenue by Shri Ritesh Mishra – CIT-DR Date of hearing 15.09.2021 Date of pronouncement 21.10.2021 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act…

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 93/SRT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 92/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263

Shree Madhi Surali Vibhag Nagrik Sahakari Dhiran Mandali Ltd, Surat vs. Pr.CIT-2, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 305/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shree Madhi Surali Vibhag The Principal Nagriksahakari Dhiran Mandali Commissioner Of Income- Vs. Ltd., Tax-2, Surat. At & Po Madhi, Tal. Bardoli, Surat – 394340. Pan: Aadas 5644 L Applicant Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 80Section 80P

…hiran Mandali Ltd., (AY 2014-15) revision, it if further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of revision is not valid. 13. 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. As we have noted above the assessing officer has made enquiries on the allowability of deduction under s…

M/S Nilkanth Stone Industries, Valsad vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 386/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.386/Srt/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Nilkanth Stone Industries, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Shop No.A-1/2/3, Nilkanth Of Income Tax, Valsad. Residency, B/H Old Jakarta Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad. [Pan: Aajfn 5653 K] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Surji Chheda - Ca राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ritesh Mishra – Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 08.04.2021 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 27.05.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memeber: 1. This Appeal Under Section 253 Of Income-Tax Act (Act) By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Valsad Hereinafter Referred As “Ld. Pcit” Passed Under Section 263 Of Income-Tax Act (Act) Dated 27.03.2018, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. The Assessee Vide His Application Dated 16.08.2018 Following Concise Grounds Of Appeal: “1. In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit Has Erred In Initiation Of Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Which Was Without Jurisdiction & The Cit Erred In Holding That The Assessment Order Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue On All Issues Discussed In Revision Order & Has Erred In Setting It Aside For Fresh

Section 253Section 263

…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) 16. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs Vikas Polmers (341 ITR 537 Delhi) held…

M/S. Bardoli Vibhag Gram Vikas Co.-Op.Credit Society Ltd., Surat vs. The Pr.. Commissioner of Income Tax, -2, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 283/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.283/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Bardoli Vibhag Gram Vikas Co.Op. Vs The Principal Credit Society Ltd., Commissioner Of Income Sahakar Sadan, Station Road, Tax-2, Surat. Bardoli, Surat. [Pan: Aaatb 8135 B] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Mitesh Modi – Ca राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ritesh Mishra – Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 29.04.2021 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 12.05.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memeber: 1. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Surat Hereinafter Referred As “Ld. Pcit”, Passed Under Section 263 Of Income- Tax Act (Act) Dated 26.03.2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Co-Operative Society Engaged In The Business Of Providing Credit Facility To Its Members By Accepting The Deposits From Members & Lending Money Them Too. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y. 2014-15 On 21.08.2013 Declaring Nil Income. In The Computation Of Income, The Assessee Claimed Deduction 80P Of The Act Of Rs.7,03,56,728/-. The Return Of Income Was Bardoli Vibhag Gram Vikas Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Vs. Pcit

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…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 Bardoli Vibhag Gram Vikas Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Vs. PCIT ITA No.283/SRT/2019 for A.Y. 2014-15 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…

Essar Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 6, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3759/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Vajresh Consultants Prcit 6, Ltd. (Earlier Known As Aayakar Bhavan, Essar Capital Ltd.), Mumbai - 400020 Vs. 40-B, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400 006 Pan: Aabce 7257R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. & Shri Hiten Chande, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263

…TR 83(30, CIT vs Max India ltd. 295 ITR 282(SC), CIT Vs Mangal Castings 303 ITR 23CP&H), CIT v. Kohinoor Tobacco Products(P)Ltd.[1998] 234 ITR 557, CIT v. Mahavar Trader s[1996J 220 ITR 167(MP), Duggal &Co.v. CIT [996] 220 ITR 456, CIT vs MEPCO Industries Ltd 294 ITR 121 (Mad,), MemttRoller Flour Mills Ltd vs CIT[2013J 35 Tatman.com 1S3(AIL), Bharti Hexacom Ltd v CIT [2013] 33 Taxman.com.210(Delhi-Tr.), CIT v RKBK Fiscal Service (P) Ltd [2013] 32 Taxman.com.l53(Cal)/ M.I. Overseas Ltd v DIT (Int. Tax) [2012] 28 Taxman.com. 279 11 M/s. Vajresh Consultants Ltd. (Earlier known as Essar Capital Ltd.) (Uttarakhand),…

Deutsche Investments India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 6, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3665/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2020AY 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 263

…R 83 (SC), CIT vs Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282(SC) CIT Vs Mangal Castings 303 ITR 23(P&H), CIT v. Kohinoor Tobacco Products(P)Ltd.[1998] 234 ITR 557, CIT v. Mahavar Traders[1996] 220 ITR 167(MP), Duggal & Co.v. CIT[1996] 220 ITR 456, CIT vs MEPCO Industries Ltd 294 ITR 121 (Mad.), Meerut Roller Flour Mills Ltd vs C1T[2013] 3S Taxman.com 183(AH.), Bharti Hexacom Ltd v CIT [2013] 33 Taxman.com.153(Cat.), M.I. Overseas Ltd v DIT (Int. Tax)[2012] 28 Taxman. com.279(Uttarakhand), Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd v CIT[2012] 26 Taxman.com 330(Chennai), CIT v Harsh J Punjabi 345 ITR 451 (Dei.), CIT v Infosys Techn. Ltd 17 Taxman.…

Technip Uk Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4284/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillai[Assessment Year: 2008-09] Technip Uk Limited Vs. The D.I.T. C/O Bmr & Associates Llp International - Ii 22Nd Floor, Building No. 5 New Delhi Tower ‘A’, Dlf Cyber City, Dlf Phase Iii, Gurgaon Haryana Pan : Aacct 8268 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Arora, Sr- DR

Section 263Section 4Section 44BSection 44D

…ing Co. vs. CIT: 263 ITR 437 (P&H) j) CIT V. D.P. Karai: 266 ITR 113 (Guj.) k) N.N Aggarwal v. CIT: 189 ITR 769 (All.) l) Bhartia Industries Ltd. v. CIT: 353 ITR 486 (Cal.) m) Paul Mathew & Sons V. CIT: 263 ITR 101 (Ker.) n) CIT V. Mepco Industries Limited: 294 ITR 121 (Mad.) o) Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd vs. Pr. CIT: ITA No. 2813/Del/2016 dated 12.01.2017 14. The ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to various pages of the paper book submitted that the assessee had at the time of filing of return of income as well as during the course of original assessment proceedings had submitted all relevant…

ACIT, Madurai vs. The Metal Powder Company Ltd., Madurai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1143/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri. G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. A.V.Sreekanth, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. A.S. Sriraman, Advocate

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 80I

…n para 5.2 at page 5 as under:- ITAT in its order in ITA NO.782 to 787/Mds/2012 & ITAT 869 to 874/Mds/2012 dated 21.02.2013 has allowed the issue in favour of the assessee with the following remarks: ’In later decision in the case of CIT Vs. MEPCO Industries 294 ITR 121 it was held that the deduction u/s.80IA and 801B could be worked out independently without effecting any inter se adjustment of loss and profit between various units. If an assessee had different units resulting in positive gross total in view of the decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdiction High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Macmillan India Ltd. (295 IT…

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

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

ITA 2836/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

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

For Respondent: Shri C.W. Angolkar

Section 143(3)Section 263

…l 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 prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The assessee company relied upon various decision…

K.P.Murugasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 769/CHNY/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Vikas Awasthyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 769/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri K.P. Murugasamy, The Deputy Commissioner Of 5, Aks Nagar, Thadagam Road, V. Income Tax, R.S. Puram, Circle Iii, Coimbatore – 641 002. Coimbatore – 641 018. Pan : Aazpm 3140 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Ruby George, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

…assessing officer has taken a possible view of the matter and hence the revision order passed by the Ld CIT is not sustainable. In this regard, the Ld A.R placed reliance on the following case law:- (a) Max India Ltd (295 ITR 282)(SC) (b) Mepco Industries (294 ITR 121)(Mad) (c) Sacsoft Ltd (298 ITR 63)(Mad). 6. On the contrary, the Ld D.R submitted that the assessee was required to comply with the norms prescribed by the Pollution Control Board for treating the effluents, which the assessee has not 5 I.T.A. No. 769/Mds/2013 complied with and the same has resulted in infraction of Pollution Control Laws. Th…