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.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Max India Ltd.?

1,162 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Max India Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 144B, Section 143(2), Section 147.

CIT v. Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282)

Wind Financial Services LLP, Daman & Diu vs. PCIT, Valsad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 502/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.501 & 502/Srt/2024 (Ays: 2014-15 & 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Wind Financial Services Llp, Vs. The Pcit, [Formerly Known Wind Financial Valsad Services Pvt. Ltd.] Shop No.102/A, 436 Sq Feet Built Up, Dabhel, Daman & Diu, Valsad – 396215 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfw6369H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri S. N. Divetia, Ar Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: These Appeals By The Assessee Emanate From The Orders Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘The Act’) By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Valsad [In Short, ‘Ld. Pcit’], Dated 16.03.2024 For Assessment Years (Ays) 2014-15 & 2015-16. Since Facts Of The Cases & The Grounds Taken Up In The Appeals Are Similar Except Variation In The Amount, These Appeals Were Heard Together & A Common Order Is Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. Ita No. 501/Srt/2024 Is Taken As The ‘Lead Case’.

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…(ii) it should be prejudicial to the interests of revenue. These conditions are conjunctive. An order of assessment passed by the AO should not be interfered with only because another view is possible. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Max India Ltd. vs. CIT 295 ITR 282 (SC) held that the Commissioner has to be satisfied of the twin conditions as stated above. If one of them is absent, recourse cannot be had to Section 263 of the Act. We find that the impugned issue of “fictitious loss of Rs.47,45,000/-” was duly considered by the AO at the time of assessment as well as re-assessment proceedings. He has certainl…

Wind Financial Services LLP, Daman & Diu vs. PCIT, Valsad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 501/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.501 & 502/Srt/2024 (Ays: 2014-15 & 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Wind Financial Services Llp, Vs. The Pcit, [Formerly Known Wind Financial Valsad Services Pvt. Ltd.] Shop No.102/A, 436 Sq Feet Built Up, Dabhel, Daman & Diu, Valsad – 396215 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfw6369H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri S. N. Divetia, Ar Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: These Appeals By The Assessee Emanate From The Orders Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘The Act’) By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Valsad [In Short, ‘Ld. Pcit’], Dated 16.03.2024 For Assessment Years (Ays) 2014-15 & 2015-16. Since Facts Of The Cases & The Grounds Taken Up In The Appeals Are Similar Except Variation In The Amount, These Appeals Were Heard Together & A Common Order Is Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. Ita No. 501/Srt/2024 Is Taken As The ‘Lead Case’.

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…(ii) it should be prejudicial to the interests of revenue. These conditions are conjunctive. An order of assessment passed by the AO should not be interfered with only because another view is possible. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Max India Ltd. vs. CIT 295 ITR 282 (SC) held that the Commissioner has to be satisfied of the twin conditions as stated above. If one of them is absent, recourse cannot be had to Section 263 of the Act. We find that the impugned issue of “fictitious loss of Rs.47,45,000/-” was duly considered by the AO at the time of assessment as well as re-assessment proceedings. He has certainl…

Adp India Private Limited, Chennai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 2672/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.: 2670, 2671, 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Adp India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Thamarai Tech Park, 6Th Floor, Vs. Income Tax, Sp Plot No. 16 To 20 & 20A, Thiru Vi Ka Corporate Circle 1(1), Industrial Estate, Inner Ring Road, Chennai. Guindy Industrial Estate So, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aadcm-5547-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Justin, Cit & Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: These Four Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Four Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (All Dated 21.08.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. Ita Nos.2670 To 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bagmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, CIT &

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)

…be treated as erroneous & prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, unless view taken by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and unsustainable in law. This legal principle is also laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282. In our considered view, view taken by the Assessing Officer on the issue of depreciation on goodwill is a possible view, because when 5th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act, has no application to the given facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer cannot take any view, which is contrary to provisions of section 32(1) of the Act…

Adp India Private Limited, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 2670/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.: 2670, 2671, 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Adp India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Thamarai Tech Park, 6Th Floor, Vs. Income Tax, Sp Plot No. 16 To 20 & 20A, Thiru Vi Ka Corporate Circle 1(1), Industrial Estate, Inner Ring Road, Chennai. Guindy Industrial Estate So, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aadcm-5547-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Justin, Cit & Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: These Four Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Four Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (All Dated 21.08.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. Ita Nos.2670 To 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bagmar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, CIT &

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)

…be treated as erroneous & prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, unless view taken by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and unsustainable in law. This legal principle is also laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282. In our considered view, view taken by the Assessing Officer on the issue of depreciation on goodwill is a possible view, because when 5th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act, has no application to the given facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer cannot take any view, which is contrary to provisions of section 32(1) of the Act…

Herbalife International India Pvt Ltd vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the assessee's appeal for

ITA/433/2018HC Karnataka20 May 2025

Bench: V KAMESWAR RAO,S RACHAIAH

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 260Section 263

…- 1 - ITA No. 433 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MAY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ITA NO. 433 OF 2018 BETWEEN: HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT. LTD., RMZ PINNACLE, NO.15, COMMISSARIAT ROAD, BENGLAURU-560 025. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, MR. SHANKAR M.S. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PERCY PARDIWALA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-I, BENGALURU, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMAN…

Save A Family Plan (India), Kanjoor vs. DCIT(Exemption), Kochi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 138/COCH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Save A Family Plan (India) Dy. Cit, Exemption Aiswaryagram, Parappuram San Juan Towers, 2Nd Floor Vs. Kanjoor - 683575 Old Railway Station Road [Pan:Aabts9439E] Kochi 682018 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Abraham J. Markose, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 260ASection 263

…e above two conditions are required to be satisfied cumulatively. References in this regard can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC) and in the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282 (SC). The error in the assessment order should be one that it is not debatable or plausible view. In a case where the Assessing Officer examined the claim took one of the plausible views, the assessment order cannot be termed as an “erroneous”. 11. In the background of above legal position, we proceed to examine the facts of the present case. Un…

Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited, Thrissur vs. DCIT Circle 1(1) & Tps, Thrissur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 307/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Sri.Harikrishnanunny, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43B

…e above two conditions are required to be satisfied cumulatively. References in this regard can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC) and in the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282 (SC). The error in the assessment order should be one that it is not debatable or plausible view. In a case where the Assessing Officer examined the claim took one of the plausible views, the assessment order cannot be termed as an “erroneous”. 8. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the AO had not examined the applicability or other…

Abroad Vitrified Pvt Ltd, Morbi vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 144/RJT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.144/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…sing the queries with respect to the issue under consideration and the same were also replied by the assessee and on receipt of the replies accepted the claim of the assessee. We further find that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282/[2008] 166 Taxman 188 (SC) has held that where two views are possible and the ITO has taken one view with which the CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, unless the view taken by the ITO is unsustainable in law. We also draw support from the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in t…

Arvind Gulati, Dubai vs. ACIT, Int Tax

Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee

ITA 2216/DEL/2024[AY 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2025

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Kumar Chaudhary, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Jain, CIT DR

Section 263Section 37

…he AO to redo the verification and assessment. In similar facts on record, the various Courts have held that this is not acceptable and desirable directions as in the several judicial precedents like Malabar Industrial Co Ltd (243 ITR 83) (SC), Max India Ltd (295 ITR 282) (SC) and DLF Ltd (250 ITR 555) (Delhi HC). Therefore, we are inclined to dismiss the views taken by the Ld. PCIT on this aspect in the CO No.26/DEL/2022 impugned order, therefore, the revision order passed u/s 263 is accordingly quashed. 8. The issue of depreciation claim on construction of workshop at Gurgaon, we observe that Ld PCIT remitted t…

Apurva Natvar Parikh & Co. Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

ITA 2646/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…aken 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." 4. 1. Under the provisions of sec. 263 of the Act, the Ld Pr. CIT can revise the order only if it is shown that the assessment order is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The question as to when an order can be termed as “erroneous” was explained by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gabriel India Ltd…

Venetian Ldf Projects LLP, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), Gurgaon

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3533/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

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

…ITA No. 3533/Del/2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3533/Del./2025, A.Y. 2021-22 Amazon Smart Commerce Solutions Vs. Principal Commissioner of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, H-9, Block B-1, Delhi-1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044, New Delhi PAN: AAECT4063H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate, Smt. Deepashree Rao, Advocate Ms. Ayushi Pragya, Advocate Revenue by Ms. Amish S. Gupt, CIT- DR Date of Hearing 15/01/2026 Date of Pronouncem…

M/S R.R.D.Developers, Gwlior vs. Pr.CIT., Gwalior

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 320/AGR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 320/Agr/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) M/S R.R.D. Developers Pr. Cit बनाम/ Kedarpur, In Front Of Tata Gwalior. Showroom, Shivpuri Link Vs. Road, Gwalior. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aamfr-5438-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. Cit/Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-04-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assails Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gwalior (Pr.Cit) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 17-03-2016. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared For Assessee. Accordingly, The Appeal Was Proceeded With The Able Assistance Of Ld. Cit-Dr Who Supported The Revision Of The Order. 2. Upon Perusal Of Assessment Order, It Could Be Seen That The Assessee’S Return Of Income Was Scrutinized & During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Notices U/S 142(1) Were Issued From Time To Time Which Were Duly Been Responded To By The Assessee. Accepting

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. CIT/DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…ted as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. The said principal has been reiterated by Hon’ble Court in its subsequent judgment titled as CIT V/s Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282). Similar principal has been followed in Grasim Industries Ltd. V/s CIT (321 ITR 92). The ratio of all these decisions is that where two views are possible and AO has preferred one view against another view, order could not be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 6. Therefore, on the given facts, the impugned revisi…

Mmtc Ltd vs. DCIT Circle 5(1)

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2732/DEL/2006[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2025AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Clix Capital Services Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Pcit, Plot No. 23, 5Th Floor, Aggarwal Delhi-1, Delhi Corporate Tower Govind Lal Sikka Marg, Rajendra Place, West Delhi, New Delhi, Delhi, India, 110008 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacc0642F

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar Bharati, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 37

…t satisfied, then ld PCIT cannot invoke revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co Ltd reported in 243 ITR 83 (SC) and Max India Ltd reported in 295 ITR 282 (SC) , among others. 7. In our considered opinion, when due enquiries have been made by the ld AO in the course of assessment proceedings, merely because the fact of making enquiries were not recorded by him in the assessment order, the order of the ld AO does not become erroneous. There is no need for the ld AO to state in his assessment order a…

Anjali Sharma, Agra vs. ITO Ward 2(1)(1), Agra

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 77/AGR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 77/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2018-19) Ms. Anjali Singhal Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 22, Vaibhav Kunj, Dayalbagh, Ward 2(1)(1), Agra. Vs. Agra. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Culps-2323-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Pankaj Gargh, Adv. – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assails Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Agra (Pr.Cit) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Vide Impugned Order Dated 21-03-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 01-02-2021. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, Our Adjudication Would Be As Under. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 285 Days In The Appeal Which Stand Condoned. 2. Upon Perusal Of Assessment Order, It Could Be Seen That The Assessee’S Return Of Income Was Selected To Verify The Issue Of Low Income In Comparison To Large Commission Receipt. The Ld. Ao

For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Gargh, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 192Section 263Section 40A(3)

…ted as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. The said principal has been reiterated by Hon’ble Court in its subsequent judgment titled as CIT V/s Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282). Similar principal has been followed in Grasim Industries Ltd. V/s CIT (321 ITR 92). The ratio ofall these decisions is that where two views are possible and AO has preferred one view against another view, order could not be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 5. Therefore, on the given facts, the impugned revisio…

Preeti Agrawal, Vaibhav Kunj Dayal Bagh Agra vs. Principal Commissioner Income Tax, Income Tax Agra

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 151/AGR/2024[ay-2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 151/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2018-19) Ms. Preeti Agrawal Pr. Cit- 1, बनाम/ 22, Vaibhav Kunj, Jyoti Road, Agra. Vs. Dayalbagh, Agra. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ahcpa-6085-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Pankaj Gargh, Adv. – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assails Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Agra For (Pr.Cit) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Vide Impugned Order Dated 23-03-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 27-01-2021. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, Our Adjudication Would Be As Under. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 330 Days In The Appeal Which Stand Condoned. 2. Upon Perusal Of Assessment Order, It Could Be Seen That The Assessee’S Return Of Income Was Selected To Verify The Issue Of Low Income In Comparison To Large Commission Receipt. The Ld. Ao

For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Gargh, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 192Section 263Section 40A(3)

…ted as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. The said principal has been reiterated by Hon’ble Court in its subsequent judgment titled as CIT V/s Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282). Similar principal has been followed in Grasim Industries Ltd. V/s CIT (321 ITR 92). The ratio ofall these decisions is that where two views are possible and AO has preferred one view against another view, order could not be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 5. Therefore, on the given facts, the impugned revisio…

Al-Hamd Agro Food Product Pvt. Ltd., Aligarh vs. PCIT-1, Agra

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 37/AGR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 37/Agr/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2016-17) Al-Hamd Agro Food Product P. Ltd. Pr. Cit - 1 बनाम/ C/O Deepak Singh, Advocate Agra. Vs. 2, Court Of Wards Compound, Aligarh. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafca-0964-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Deepak Singh, Adv. – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assails Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Agra (Pr.Cit) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 Vide Impugned Order Dated 31-03-2021 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 02-11-2016. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, Our Adjudication Would Be As Under. 2. Upon Perusal Of Case Records, It Could Be Seen That The Assessee’S Case Was Subjected To Limited Scrutiny. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Notices U/S 142(1) Were Issued To The Assessee Calling For Various Details Which Were Duly Been Responded

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Singh, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ted as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. The said principal has been reiterated by Hon’ble Court in its subsequent judgment titled as CIT V/s Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282). Similar principal has been followed in Grasim Industries Ltd. V/s CIT (321 ITR 92). The ratio ofall these decisions is that where two views are possible and AO has preferred one view against another view, order could not be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 6. Therefore, on the given facts, the impugned revisio…

Rukmani Devi Jain, Agra vs. Pr.CIT.-1, Agra

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 30/AGR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 29/Agr/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.30/Agr/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. Rukmani Devi Jain Pr. Cit - 1 बनाम/ 37/396/17, Gopal Kunj Agra. Vs. Agra (Up)-282002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Anxpj-7557-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Deependra Mohan, Ca – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of These Appeals, The Assessee Assails Revision Of Order U/S 263 For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015-16 & 2016-17. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2015-16 Which Assail Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Agra (Pr.Cit) Vide Impugned Order Dated 22-03-2021 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 24-12-2017. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, Our Adjudication Would Be As Under.

For Appellant: Sh. Deependra Mohan, CA – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

…ted as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. The said principal has been reiterated by Hon’ble Court in its subsequent judgment titled as CIT V/s Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282). Similar principal has been followed in Grasim Industries Ltd. V/s CIT (321 ITR 92). The ratio ofall these decisions is that where two views are possible and AO has preferred one view against another view, order could not be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 6. Therefore, on the given facts, the impugned revisio…

Rukmani Devi Jain, Agra vs. Pr.CIT-1, Agra

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 29/AGR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 29/Agr/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.30/Agr/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. Rukmani Devi Jain Pr. Cit - 1 बनाम/ 37/396/17, Gopal Kunj Agra. Vs. Agra (Up)-282002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Anxpj-7557-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Deependra Mohan, Ca – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of These Appeals, The Assessee Assails Revision Of Order U/S 263 For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015-16 & 2016-17. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2015-16 Which Assail Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Agra (Pr.Cit) Vide Impugned Order Dated 22-03-2021 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 24-12-2017. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, Our Adjudication Would Be As Under.

For Appellant: Sh. Deependra Mohan, CA – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

…ted as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. The said principal has been reiterated by Hon’ble Court in its subsequent judgment titled as CIT V/s Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282). Similar principal has been followed in Grasim Industries Ltd. V/s CIT (321 ITR 92). The ratio ofall these decisions is that where two views are possible and AO has preferred one view against another view, order could not be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 6. Therefore, on the given facts, the impugned revisio…

B.P. Oil Mills Ltd., Agra vs. Pr.CIT-1, Agra

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 25/AGR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Deependra Mohan, CA – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. CIT/DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ted as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. The said principal has been reiterated by Hon’ble Court in its subsequent judgment titled as CIT V/s Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282). Similar principal has been followed in Grasim Industries Ltd. V/s CIT (321 ITR 92). The ratio of all these decisions is that where two views are possible and AO has preferred one view against another view, order could not be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 6. Therefore, on the given facts, the impugned revisi…

Gdp Agro & Food Products Pvt Ltd, Gwalior vs. P CIT, Gwalior

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 675/AGR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Deependra Mohan, CA – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263

…ted as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. The said principal has been reiterated by Hon’ble Court in its subsequent judgment titled as CIT V/s Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282). Similar principal has been followed in Grasim Industries Ltd. V/s CIT (321 ITR 92). The ratio ofall these decisions is that where two views are possible and AO has preferred one view against another view, order could not be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 6. Therefore, on the given facts, the impugned revisio…

CIT v. Max India Ltd.

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

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Max India Ltd.

Wind Financial Services LLP, Daman & Diu vs. PCIT, Valsad

Wind Financial Services LLP, Daman & Diu vs. PCIT, Valsad

Adp India Private Limited, Chennai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

Adp India Private Limited, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

Herbalife International India Pvt Ltd vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

Save A Family Plan (India), Kanjoor vs. DCIT(Exemption), Kochi

Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited, Thrissur vs. DCIT Circle 1(1) & Tps, Thrissur

Abroad Vitrified Pvt Ltd, Morbi vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

Arvind Gulati, Dubai vs. ACIT, Int Tax

Apurva Natvar Parikh & Co. Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-6, Mumbai

Venetian Ldf Projects LLP, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), Gurgaon

M/S R.R.D.Developers, Gwlior vs. Pr.CIT., Gwalior

Mmtc Ltd vs. DCIT Circle 5(1)

Anjali Sharma, Agra vs. ITO Ward 2(1)(1), Agra

Preeti Agrawal, Vaibhav Kunj Dayal Bagh Agra vs. Principal Commissioner Income Tax, Income Tax Agra

Al-Hamd Agro Food Product Pvt. Ltd., Aligarh vs. PCIT-1, Agra

Rukmani Devi Jain, Agra vs. Pr.CIT.-1, Agra

Rukmani Devi Jain, Agra vs. Pr.CIT-1, Agra

B.P. Oil Mills Ltd., Agra vs. Pr.CIT-1, Agra

Gdp Agro & Food Products Pvt Ltd, Gwalior vs. P CIT, Gwalior