CIT v. Max India Ltd.

295 ITR 282Supreme Court of India2007#38 most cited

What is CIT v. Max India Ltd. authority for?

Under Section 263, an assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue merely because the Principal Commissioner disagrees with the Assessing Officer's (AO) view, particularly if the AO has adopted one of two permissible views in law, unless that view is completely unsustainable. If due inquiries were made, the AO's order does not become erroneous solely because the fact of inquiries was not recorded.

1,162

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Max India Ltd. · Section 263 Income Tax Act · revision under Section 263 · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · two views possible · Assessing Officer view · Malabar Industrial · inadequate enquiry · non-application of mind · principal commissioner of income-tax

Also reported as

166 Taxmann 188213 CTR 266166 Taxmann.com 188

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 1961

Issues it is cited on

malabar industrialinadequate enquiryrevision u/s 263assessment order erroneouslack of enquiryrevision under section 263section 263(1)erroneous and prejudicialsection 263section 26principal commissioner of income-taxnon-application of mind

Judgments citing CIT v. Max India Ltd.

RANJANBEN AJITENDRA PARIKH,NA vs. ARIVS.OFFICE OF THE PR. CIT, VALSAD

In the result, all three appeals are allowed

ITA 853/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT. D.R
Section 263

…all the plausible manners, the Pr.CIT cannot take a different view which tantamount to second opinion which is not the criteria for invoking of Section 263 of the Act. Thus, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) comes into picture which categorically states that when two views are inherently possible, then Section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in respect of ITA No.851/SRT/2025 for A.Y. 2017-18. ITA Nos. 851 to 853/SRT/2025 M/s. Dayaram Brijbhukhandas Vs. Pr.CIT & Ors. Asst.Year :2017-18 - 20– 8. As reg…

RANJITBHAI AMBUBHAI PATEL,BILIMORA vs. OFFICE OF THE PR. CIT, VALSAD

In the result, all three appeals are allowed

ITA 852/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT. D.R
Section 263

…all the plausible manners, the Pr.CIT cannot take a different view which tantamount to second opinion which is not the criteria for invoking of Section 263 of the Act. Thus, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) comes into picture which categorically states that when two views are inherently possible, then Section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in respect of ITA No.851/SRT/2025 for A.Y. 2017-18. ITA Nos. 851 to 853/SRT/2025 M/s. Dayaram Brijbhukhandas Vs. Pr.CIT & Ors. Asst.Year :2017-18 - 20– 8. As reg…

M/S DAYARAM BRIJBHUKHANDAS,NA vs. ARIVS.OFFICE OF THE PR. CIT, VALSAD

In the result, all three appeals are allowed

ITA 851/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT. D.R
Section 263

…all the plausible manners, the Pr.CIT cannot take a different view which tantamount to second opinion which is not the criteria for invoking of Section 263 of the Act. Thus, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) comes into picture which categorically states that when two views are inherently possible, then Section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in respect of ITA No.851/SRT/2025 for A.Y. 2017-18. ITA Nos. 851 to 853/SRT/2025 M/s. Dayaram Brijbhukhandas Vs. Pr.CIT & Ors. Asst.Year :2017-18 - 20– 8. As reg…

PENNAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is partly allowed/partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 832/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)Section 263

…law, or where two views are possible and the AO has taken one view with which the CIT does not agree, the order cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial unless the view taken is unsustainable in law. Further, in the case of CIT v. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated that when two views are possible, and the AO has taken one view, then Section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the CIT prefers another view. It is equally well settled that where the AO has made enquiries, elicited replies, and applied his mind to an issue, the CIT cannot assume jurisdiction unde…

AMAZON SMART COMMERCE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1, DELHI

ITA 3533/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)

…er should be: (a) erroneous; and (b) prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 15. Reliance, in this regard, is placed on the following decisions: Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 243 ITR 83 (SC) CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)] CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR 1 (SC) 16. It is further settled law that if the assessing officer has adopted one of the courses permissible in law which has resulted in loss of revenue, or where two views are possible and the assessing officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, the exercise of…

MADAN MOHAN RAO PUVVADA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1152/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1152/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Madan Mohan Rao The Income Tax Puvvada, Hyderabad. Officer, Ward-5(1), Vs. Pin – 500 063. Hyderabad. Pan Agjpp4754H Telangana. Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04.03.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263

…sustainable in law. Therefore, the revision order passed u/sec.263 deserves to be quashed. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following decisions: 1. Malabar Industries co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (S.C) 2. CIT vs Max India Ltd [2008] 295 ITR 282 (S.C) 3. PCIT vs. Dhana Reddy & Co [2018] 100 taxmann.com 358 (S.C) 4. CIT vs Srinivasa Hatcheries (P.) Ltd [2015] 60 taxmann.com 207 (AP & Telangana) 5. Spectra Shares & Scrips (P.) Ltd vs. CIT, [2013] 36 taxmann.com 348 (AP) 11 ITA.No.1152/Hyd./2024 6. Satyanarayana Reddy Manne, Hydereabad vs. ACIT Central Circle -2(4), Hyderabad A Bench, Hyde…

SH. RANDHIR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 494/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE NOTICE U/S 263 CANNOT BE INVOKED i) 243 ITR 83 (SC) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT ii) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers iii) 332 ITR 167 (Del) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. iv) 329 ITR 289 (Del) CIT vs. DLF Power Ltd v) 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. vi) 323 ITR 632 (Bom) CIT vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. vii) 294 ITR 121 (Chennai) CIT vs. Mepco Industries Ltd. viii) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) CIT vs. Munjal Castings ix) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CIT x) 325 ITR 343 (P&H) CIT vs. Tek Chand Saini xi) 333 ITR 547 (Del) CIT vs. Honda Si…

SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 488/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE NOTICE U/S 263 CANNOT BE INVOKED i) 243 ITR 83 (SC) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT ii) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers iii) 332 ITR 167 (Del) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. iv) 329 ITR 289 (Del) CIT vs. DLF Power Ltd v) 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. vi) 323 ITR 632 (Bom) CIT vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. vii) 294 ITR 121 (Chennai) CIT vs. Mepco Industries Ltd. viii) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) CIT vs. Munjal Castings ix) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CIT x) 325 ITR 343 (P&H) CIT vs. Tek Chand Saini xi) 333 ITR 547 (Del) CIT vs. Honda Si…

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 290/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE NOTICE U/S 263 CANNOT BE INVOKED i) 243 ITR 83 (SC) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT ii) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers iii) 332 ITR 167 (Del) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. iv) 329 ITR 289 (Del) CIT vs. DLF Power Ltd v) 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. vi) 323 ITR 632 (Bom) CIT vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. vii) 294 ITR 121 (Chennai) CIT vs. Mepco Industries Ltd. viii) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) CIT vs. Munjal Castings ix) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CIT x) 325 ITR 343 (P&H) CIT vs. Tek Chand Saini xi) 333 ITR 547 (Del) CIT vs. Honda Si…

DHUNI CHAND HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 289/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE NOTICE U/S 263 CANNOT BE INVOKED i) 243 ITR 83 (SC) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT ii) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers iii) 332 ITR 167 (Del) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. iv) 329 ITR 289 (Del) CIT vs. DLF Power Ltd v) 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. vi) 323 ITR 632 (Bom) CIT vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. vii) 294 ITR 121 (Chennai) CIT vs. Mepco Industries Ltd. viii) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) CIT vs. Munjal Castings ix) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CIT x) 325 ITR 343 (P&H) CIT vs. Tek Chand Saini xi) 333 ITR 547 (Del) CIT vs. Honda Si…

SH. KASHMIR SINGH SANDHA,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 288/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE NOTICE U/S 263 CANNOT BE INVOKED i) 243 ITR 83 (SC) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT ii) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers iii) 332 ITR 167 (Del) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. iv) 329 ITR 289 (Del) CIT vs. DLF Power Ltd v) 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. vi) 323 ITR 632 (Bom) CIT vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. vii) 294 ITR 121 (Chennai) CIT vs. Mepco Industries Ltd. viii) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) CIT vs. Munjal Castings ix) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CIT x) 325 ITR 343 (P&H) CIT vs. Tek Chand Saini xi) 333 ITR 547 (Del) CIT vs. Honda Si…

M/S GANESH DASS HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 287/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE NOTICE U/S 263 CANNOT BE INVOKED i) 243 ITR 83 (SC) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT ii) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers iii) 332 ITR 167 (Del) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. iv) 329 ITR 289 (Del) CIT vs. DLF Power Ltd v) 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. vi) 323 ITR 632 (Bom) CIT vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. vii) 294 ITR 121 (Chennai) CIT vs. Mepco Industries Ltd. viii) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) CIT vs. Munjal Castings ix) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CIT x) 325 ITR 343 (P&H) CIT vs. Tek Chand Saini xi) 333 ITR 547 (Del) CIT vs. Honda Si…

SH. ARVAIL SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 286/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE NOTICE U/S 263 CANNOT BE INVOKED i) 243 ITR 83 (SC) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT ii) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers iii) 332 ITR 167 (Del) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. iv) 329 ITR 289 (Del) CIT vs. DLF Power Ltd v) 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. vi) 323 ITR 632 (Bom) CIT vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. vii) 294 ITR 121 (Chennai) CIT vs. Mepco Industries Ltd. viii) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) CIT vs. Munjal Castings ix) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CIT x) 325 ITR 343 (P&H) CIT vs. Tek Chand Saini xi) 333 ITR 547 (Del) CIT vs. Honda Si…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. RUSSEL CREDIT LIMITED

ITAT/153/2025HC Calcutta20 Feb 2026

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ,HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 263

…IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (Income Tax) (Original Side) Reserved on : 10.02.2026. Pronounced on : 20.02.2026 ITAT 153 OF 2025 With IA No. GA 2 of 2025 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kolkata ...Appellant -Vs- Russel Credit Limited ...Respondent Present:- Mr. Prithu D…

STUDDS ACCESSORIES LIMITED,FARIDABAD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FARIDABAD, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3570/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalkra, Adv &For Respondent: Sh. Avikal Manu, CIT DR
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 80J

…2019] 110 taxmann.com 213/SLP No. 42784 of 2018 (SC) [upheld CIT vs. Kamal Galani, [2018] 95 taxmann.com 261/ITA No. 1376 of 2007 (Gujarat)] - PCIT vs. Shree Gayatri Associates, [2019] 106 taxmann.com 31/SLP No. 4354 of 2019 (SC) -CIT vs Max India Ltd: [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) 9 - PCIT vs. National Dairy Development Board: [2024] 297 Taxman 306 (Gujarat) -CIT vs LIC housing Finance Ltd: [2014] 367 ITR 458 (Bombay) - CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd.: [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) - Grasim Industries Ltd: [2010] 188 taxman 327 (Bombay) - CIT vs Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd: (2013) ITA no 296 of 2013 (Bombay) - Sir Ratan Tata T…

ANIL TUTEJA,FATEHABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 780/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…the PCIT passed the order u/s 263. It is a settled law that proceedings u/s 263 is not possible when the underlying issue is debatable or where 2 views are possible. For this, we rely upon: (Copy appended at page 119-130 of ws)  CIT v. Max India Ltd. [(2007) 213 CTR 266 (SC)]  CIT vs M/s DLF Ltd. (ITA 236/2010 & 384/2010) (Delhi HC)  It is further, most respectfully, submitted that one of the assessee in the Batch of cases in Hari Singh (Supreme Court) was Rajender Singh. In that case, the Hon’ble SC having decided the matter in favour of the assessee in 2017, the revenue initially filed MA No. 823 of 2019 bef…

KARAN PRATAP SINGH,SIRSA, HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-1, SIRSA, HARYANA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 761/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…the PCIT passed the order u/s 263. It is a settled law that proceedings u/s 263 is not possible when the underlying issue is debatable or where 2 views are possible. For this, we rely upon: (Copy appended at page 119-130 of ws)  CIT v. Max India Ltd. [(2007) 213 CTR 266 (SC)]  CIT vs M/s DLF Ltd. (ITA 236/2010 & 384/2010) (Delhi HC)  It is further, most respectfully, submitted that one of the assessee in the Batch of cases in Hari Singh (Supreme Court) was Rajender Singh. In that case, the Hon’ble SC having decided the matter in favour of the assessee in 2017, the revenue initially filed MA No. 823 of 2019 bef…

MUNISH KUMAR LEGAL HEIR LATE SH GURDEEP SINGH,VILL MANAKPUR, YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 5, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 754/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…the PCIT passed the order u/s 263. It is a settled law that proceedings u/s 263 is not possible when the underlying issue is debatable or where 2 views are possible. For this, we rely upon: (Copy appended at page 119-130 of ws)  CIT v. Max India Ltd. [(2007) 213 CTR 266 (SC)]  CIT vs M/s DLF Ltd. (ITA 236/2010 & 384/2010) (Delhi HC)  It is further, most respectfully, submitted that one of the assessee in the Batch of cases in Hari Singh (Supreme Court) was Rajender Singh. In that case, the Hon’ble SC having decided the matter in favour of the assessee in 2017, the revenue initially filed MA No. 823 of 2019 bef…

MADHU GREWAL,CHANDIGARH vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 603/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…the PCIT passed the order u/s 263. It is a settled law that proceedings u/s 263 is not possible when the underlying issue is debatable or where 2 views are possible. For this, we rely upon: (Copy appended at page 119-130 of ws)  CIT v. Max India Ltd. [(2007) 213 CTR 266 (SC)]  CIT vs M/s DLF Ltd. (ITA 236/2010 & 384/2010) (Delhi HC)  It is further, most respectfully, submitted that one of the assessee in the Batch of cases in Hari Singh (Supreme Court) was Rajender Singh. In that case, the Hon’ble SC having decided the matter in favour of the assessee in 2017, the revenue initially filed MA No. 823 of 2019 bef…

PARVEEN KUMAR,229,VILLAGE MANAKPUR-II,TEHSIL JAGADHRI,HARYANA vs. PRABHJOT KAUR,PCIT PANCHKULA, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 576/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

…the PCIT passed the order u/s 263. It is a settled law that proceedings u/s 263 is not possible when the underlying issue is debatable or where 2 views are possible. For this, we rely upon: (Copy appended at page 119-130 of ws)  CIT v. Max India Ltd. [(2007) 213 CTR 266 (SC)]  CIT vs M/s DLF Ltd. (ITA 236/2010 & 384/2010) (Delhi HC)  It is further, most respectfully, submitted that one of the assessee in the Batch of cases in Hari Singh (Supreme Court) was Rajender Singh. In that case, the Hon’ble SC having decided the matter in favour of the assessee in 2017, the revenue initially filed MA No. 823 of 2019 bef…

Showing 1–20 of 1,162 · Page 1 of 59

...