Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.32 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 115P in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 251 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Nirma Chemicals Works P. Ltd. on 4 February, 2008
ii) CIT vs. Nirma Chemical Works 309 ITR 67 (Guj.)
Cit vs Max India Ltd. on 1 November, 2007
12. The CIT is not correct in invoking the
provisions of section 263 as we find that the issue
is debatable and when two views are possible the
AO has taken one view. The Apex Court in the case
of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in
34
ITA.No.1792 to 1795/Hyd/2013
M/s. NMDC Ltd. Hyderabad
243 ITR 83 as well as CIT Vs. Max India Ltd.
reported in 295 ITR 282 has held that when there
are two views possible and the AO has taken one
view, the order of the AO cannot be considered as
erroneous and hence the CIT cannot exercise
revisional power u/s 263. As pointed out above, the
provisions for an accrued existing liability, even
though, the actual expenditure may take place at a
later date, is an allowable deduction and the CIT
erred in treating it as an unascertained liability.
Therefore, we set aside the order of the CIT passed
u/s 263 and the order of the AO is restored."