TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 861
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal for hearing. 2. The facts relating to the case are stated in brief. The assessment in the hands of the assessee for the year under consideration was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 29-12-2008 by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT, on examination of the record, noticed that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue on the following two issues: (i) The deduction u/s. 10A was wrongly allowed since the total income before allowing such deduction was a negative figure, and (ii) Depreciation on vehicle running on hire was allowed @ 40% as against 25% allowable. 3. Accordingly, he invoked the provisions u/s. 263 of the act. After hearing the submissions made by the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2 ITR (Trb.) 66(Chennai) (SB), has decided the same in favour of the assessee by holding that deduction u/s. 10A has to be allowed in respect of eligible undertaking under Chapter III of the Income Tax Act, since it does not enter the computation of total income. However, the Ld. CIT rejected the contentions of the assessee on the reasoning that there is no estoppel in fiscal statutes and for that proposition, the Ld. CIT placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of C.K. Gangadharan & Another vs. CIT (SC) (218 CTR 1). 6. The Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that the deduction u/s. 10A of the Act, in the instant case, has been claimed in respect of one of the undertakings owned by the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. In this connection, we feel it pertinent to refer to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. V CIT (321 ITR 92), wherein the court has discussed about the scope of provisions of section 263 as under: Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 empowers the Commissioner to call for and examine the record of any proceedings under the Act and, if he considers that any order passed therein, by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, to pass an order upon hearing the assessee and after an enquiry as is necessary, enhancing or modifying the assessment or canceling the assessment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue, or where two views are possible and the Income-tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law." The principle which has been laid down in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) has been followed and explained in a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282." 8. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the assessment order passed by the AO is a cryptic one and it did not contain any discussion on the issues th....