2018 (5) TMI 2056

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... raised several identical grounds in its appeals however the crux of the issue is that the Ld.PCIT has erred in invoking his jurisdiction U/s.263 of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a cooperative bank, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 electronically on 30.09.2009 admitting total income of Rs. 31,45,31,341/- and subsequently filed revised return on 10.02.2010 admitting total income of Rs. 38,55,67,390/- and for the assessment year 2010-11 the assessee filed its return of income electronically on 01.10.2010 admitting total income of Rs. 47,42,79,440/-. Initially the returns were processed U/s.143(1) of the Act on 30.03.2011 & 19.04.2011 for the assessment years 2009-10 & 2010-11 res....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Mds) (iii) The Hon'ble Apex Court in Max India Ltd., reported in 295 ITR 282(SC), CIT vs. Green World Corporation reported in (2009) 181 Taxman 111 (SC) (iv) The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court n CIT Vs. Gokuldas Exports reported in (2011) 333 ITR (Kar) (v) The Hon'ble Bangalore High Court in Infosys Technologies Vs. JCIT reported in (2006) 286 ITR (AT) 211. (vi) The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. reported in (2015) 230 ITR 641 and CIT Vs. Nirav Modi reported in (2016) 390 ITR 292 (Bom) (vii) The Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT Vs. Valliammal (D) reported in 19998 230 ITR (Mds) (viii) The Hon'ble Apex Court in Metal Box Company of India Ltd., Vs. Their Wor....