Liberty India v. CIT (

288 ITR 494High Court2007#6929 most cited
17

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Liberty India v. CIT (

MARATHWADA AUTO CLUSTER,,AURANGABAD vs. आयकर आयुक्त, (EXEMPTION),, PUNE

ITA 771/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.771/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Marathwada Auto Cluster, P-174, M.I.D.C., Waluj, Aurangabad-36 Pan : Aagcm3333D . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune. . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri S. N. Puranik Revenue By : Shri Naveen Gupta सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 13/10/2022 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 13/10/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Pune [For Short “Cit(E)”] Dt. 31/03/2019 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Setting Aside The Order Of Assessment Order Dt. 29/12/2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Passed By Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-1, Aurangabad [For Short “Ao”].

For Appellant: Shri S. N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 25Section 263

…nce involving erroneous assessment prejudicial to interest of the revenue unless of course the Assessing Officer’s view is unsustainable in law. The very view stood reiterated in CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC), CIT v. Nahar Exports Ltd. (2007) 288 ITR 494 (P&H), CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) Grasim Industries vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR, 92 (Bom). We keeping in mind all this settle legal preposition, to revert back to the twin issues (supra) raised in the Ld. CIT(E)’s 263 order under challenge. 7. Admittedly, the case of the appellant was selected for limited scrutiny, which after…