Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Assessing Officer's Order Upheld, Section 263 Not Applicable</h1> <h3>MAX INDIA LTD. Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.</h3> MAX INDIA LTD. Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. - TTJ 090, 670, Issues Involved:1. Legitimacy of the CIT's invocation of Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961.2. Correctness of the AO's computation of deduction under Section 80HHC of the IT Act.3. Interpretation of the term 'Profit' in the context of Section 80HHC.Detailed Analysis:1. Legitimacy of the CIT's Invocation of Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961:The CIT invoked Section 263, arguing that the AO's order was 'erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.' The CIT contended that the AO did not properly verify the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80HHC, allowing it without ensuring compliance with relevant legal provisions. The CIT highlighted that the AO adopted a 'NIL' figure for profits when there was a negative figure, which was against the IT Act's provisions.The Tribunal examined whether the AO's view was perverse or impossible. It found that the AO's view was supported by various Tribunal decisions, making it a possible view. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, which stated that for Section 263 to be invoked, the order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interests. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's order was not erroneous, as it was one of the possible views supported by legal precedents. Therefore, the CIT was not justified in invoking Section 263.2. Correctness of the AO's Computation of Deduction under Section 80HHC of the IT Act:The AO allowed a deduction under Section 80HHC based on the assessee's calculations, which treated negative profit figures as 'NIL.' The CIT argued that this approach was incorrect and led to an excessive deduction.The Tribunal reviewed various decisions, including those of the Tribunal Benches in cases like Asstt. CIT vs. Avon Cycles Ltd., Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd. vs. ITO, and Indian Sugar & General Industry Export Import Corpn. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT. These decisions supported the view that negative figures should be ignored while computing deductions under Section 80HHC. The Tribunal found that the AO's computation method was consistent with these decisions, making it a reasonable and possible view.3. Interpretation of the Term 'Profit' in the Context of Section 80HHC:The assessee argued that the term 'Profit' in Section 80HHC should not include losses. They cited legal precedents and interpretations, including the Bombay High Court's decision in Ramniklal Tribhowandas vs. V.R. Amin and the legislative intent behind the term 'Profit.'The CIT disagreed, stating that ignoring losses was contrary to the legislative intent. However, the Tribunal found that the majority of Tribunal Benches had interpreted 'Profit' to exclude losses, supporting the assessee's view. The Tribunal cited cases like A.M. Moosa vs. Asstt. CIT and Pratibha Syntex Ltd. vs. Jt. CIT, which held that losses should be ignored in the computation under Section 80HHC.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the Revenue's interests, as it was a possible view supported by legal precedents. Therefore, the CIT was not justified in invoking Section 263. The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and allowed the assessee's appeal.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found