Case LawHigh Court › Max Life Insurance Company v. Deputy Com...

Max Life Insurance Company v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

High Court 27 Mar 2017 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Max Life Insurance Company v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
27 Mar 2017
Assessment year(s)
2002-03, 2009-10
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Max Life Insurance Company v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2017) decided the matter.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

$~29 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +W.P.(C) 2702/2017 & CM Nos. 11708-11709/2017 MAX LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Himanshu Sinha and Ms. Vrinda Tulshan, Advs. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... RespondentThrough: Mr. Asheesh Jain, Sr. St. Counsel withMr. Arun Khatri, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHATHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRIO R D E R%27.03.2017 The petitioner is aggrieved by a notice dated 14.03.2017 givenby the AO seeking to give effect to the CIT(A)’s directions withrespect to the carry forward and set off of losses claimed by theassessee in respect of AY 2002-03 to AY 2009-10. It is submittedthat this in effect amounts to re-visiting a concluded assessment and,therefore, impermissible in law. At the outset, it is pointed out by counsel for the Revenue, whoappears on advance notice, that the petitioner has appealed to theITAT, which is yet to be approached under proviso to Section254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the AO is dutybound to conclude the assessment under Section 153 of the Act latestW.P.(C) 2702/2017Page 1 of 2 by 31.03.2017 and its application is for extension of time by sixmonths is pending. In view of the submissions made this Court is of the opinionthat the petitioner should apply for appropriate interim relief beforethe ITAT, which shall examine and rule upon relief claimedindependently, on its merits. Likewise, the AO should consider thepetitioner’s request for extension of time to complete the assessmentfor the relevant assessment years under Section 153(5), appropriately,having regard to the circumstances, in accordance with law. It is opento the petitioner to seek appropriate orders from the ITAT forexpeditious disposal of its appeals. In case such request is made, theITAT may consider it reasonably. The writ petition is disposed off. Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J MARCH 27, 2017/kk NAJMI WAZIRI, J
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan