CIT v. Max India Ltd.

295 ITR 282Supreme Court of India2007#37 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 367,181 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.

Ashok Kumar Sharma, Morena vs. Pr. CIT, Gwalior

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 370/AGR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Navin Gargh, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. CIT-DR
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…

Pramod Kumar Goyal, Gwalior vs. Pr. CIT, Gwalior

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 368/AGR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 368/Agr/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Pramod Kumar Goyal Pr. Cit बनाम/ (Prop. M/S. Shreyansh Traders) Gwalior Chhutmal Ki Bajariya, Maina Wali Gali, Vs. Dal Bazar, Gwalior(Mp). "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Agspg-1575-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Navin Gargh, Adv. – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-02-2025 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, Gwalior (Pr.Cit) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Vide Impugned Order Dated 23-03-2018 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 23-03-2016. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, Our Adjudication Would Be As Under. 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 Raising Various Queries Against The Assessee. The Assessee Claimed Exemption U/S 54B. Upon Perusal Of Computations & Various

For Appellant: Sh. Navin Gargh, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50CSection 54B

…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…

M/S L.B.Wines Private Limitted, Ludhiana vs. Pr.CIT-1, Ludhiana

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 84/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.84/Chandi/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S L.B.Wines Private Ltd. Pr Cit-I B-1, 1446/13A Aaykar Bhawan, बनाम/ Chhoti Haibowal Rishi Nagar Vs. Ludhiana-141001. Ludhiana-141001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Jldlo-0809-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : S/Shri Ashwani Kumar&Aditya Kumar (Ca) & Ms. Muskan Garg (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Rohit Sharma – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-04-2025 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, Ludhiana-1 (Pr.Cit) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Vide Impugned Order Dated 23-03-2021 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 22-12-2017. 2. The Ld. Ar Advanced Arguments & Made Out A Case Of One Of The Possible Views. The Ld. Cit-Dr Also Advanced Arguments & Submitted That Ld. Ao Failed To Make Requisite Enquiries On The Issues

For Appellant: S/Shri Ashwani Kumar&Aditya Kumar (CA) and Ms. Muskan Garg (CA) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194ISection 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…

Shri Ganesh Serva Seva Sangha Shripur, Solapur vs. CIT(E), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1230/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1230/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1230/PUN/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Ganesh Serva Seva Sangha Vs. CIT(Exemption), Shripur, Pune A/P. Shripur, Borgaon, Malshiras, Solapur 413 112 Maharashtra PAN : AAETS6330H Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Pratik Sandbhor Revenue by : Shri Amol Khairnar Date of hearing : 27.01.2025 Date of pronouncement : 21.04.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal filed at the instance of assessee pertaining…

Meenamani Ganga Builder LLP, Pune vs. PCIT (Central), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1027/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1027/Pun/2024

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 263Section 263(1)Section 68

…सत्यमेव जयते IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1027/PUN/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20 Meenamani Ganga Builder LLP, San Mahu Complex, Office N5, Bund Garden Road, Opposite Poona Club, Pune 411 001, Maharashtra PAN: AAUFM6455H Vs. PCIT (Central), Pune Appellant Respondent Appellant by Revenue by Date of hearing Date of pronouncement : Shri Rajiv Thakkar : Shri Amol Khairnar : 28.01.2025 : 21.04.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal filed at the instan…

DCIT 2 2 1, Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 992/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shrinarendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeyes Bank Limited Vs Additional Commissioner Of Income Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor, Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent Additional Commissioner Of Vs Yes Bank Limited Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thard &Ms.Vidhi SalotFor Respondent: Ms. Ramapriya Raghavan - CIT DR&
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRINARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Yes Bank Limited vs Additional commissioner of Income Yes Bank House, 8th Floor, Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 PAN : AAACY2068D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Additional commissioner of vs Yes Bank Limited Yes Bank House, 8th Floor Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 PAN : AAACY2068D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Y…

Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 1093/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shrinarendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeyes Bank Limited Vs Additional Commissioner Of Income Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor, Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent Additional Commissioner Of Vs Yes Bank Limited Yes Bank House, 8Th Floor Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Pan : Aaacy2068D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thard &Ms.Vidhi SalotFor Respondent: Ms. Ramapriya Raghavan - CIT DR&
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRINARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Yes Bank Limited vs Additional commissioner of Income Yes Bank House, 8th Floor, Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 PAN : AAACY2068D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Additional commissioner of vs Yes Bank Limited Yes Bank House, 8th Floor Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula Prabhat Colony, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 PAN : AAACY2068D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Y…

Hariram Hospital, Alwar vs. PCIT, Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1535/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1535/JPR/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Hariram Hospital Bye Pass Road Hariram Hospital Bhiwadi, Alwar – 310 019 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The Pr.CIT (Central) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAFFH 5746 M अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Himanshu Goyal, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Da

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…e, unless the view taken by the AO is totally unsustainable in law. We draw strength from the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v/s CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC). We also refer to the case of CIT v/s Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) wherein it is held that ; "The phrase "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" in S. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has to be read in conjunction with the expression "erroneous" order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the int…

Clix Capital Services Private Limited, Delhi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-1, Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2732/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

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…

Satyanarayana Reddy Manne, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1332/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA MV Prasad and Shri KS Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 263

…e treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law. The said legal principle was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Max India Ltd [2008] 295 ITR 282 (SC). Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of PCIT v. Dhana Reddy & Co [2018] 100 taxmann.com 358 (SC), has dismissed the SLP filed against the judgment of Hon'ble Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court. The Hon'ble Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court, in its judgment reported at PCIT v. Dhana Reddy & Co [2018] 100 taxmann.com 357…

Dinesh Bohra, Mumbai vs. ITO, W-1, Barmer, Rajasthan

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 373/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Bledinesh Bohra Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Unit 517, Option Primo, Andheri Tax-1, Jodhpur. East, Mumbai-400093 Pan No. Aanpb4468Q Assessee By Shri Gautam Chand Baid, C.A. & Shri Mayank Taparia, Advocate. Revenue By Shri Manoj Kumar Mahar (Cit- D.R.) Date Of Hearing 20.02.2025. Date Of Pronouncement 25.03.2025.

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…1 ITA No. 373/Jodh/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH (Virtual) JODHPUR BEFORE DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Dinesh Bohra Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Unit 517, OPTION PRIMO, Andheri Tax-1, Jodhpur. East, Mumbai-400093 PAN No. AANPB4468Q Assessee by Shri Gautam Chand Baid, C.A. and Shri Mayank Taparia, Advocate. Revenue by Shri Manoj Kumar Mahar (CIT- D.R.) Date of Hearing 20.02.2025. Date of Pronouncement 25.03.2025. ITA No. 373/Jodh/2024 (Assessment Year 2018-19) DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, A.M.: ORDER This appeal by the assesse…

Sri Arumuga Sugars Limited, Coimbatore vs. PCIT, Central - 2, Chennai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1616/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1616/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Sri Arumuga Sugars Limited Pcit (Central) बनाम/ 51, Appusamy Layout, Redfields, Chennai-2. Vs. Coimbatore-641 045. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aancs-4704-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkat Raman (Ca) - Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkat Raman (CA) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ'वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम)। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1616/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Sri Arumuga Sugars Limited PCIT (Central) बनाम/ 51, Appusamy Layout, Redfields, Chennai-2. Vs. Coimbatore-641 045. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/TAN No. AANCS-4704-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri R. Venkat Raman (CA) - Ld.AR ""थ"कीओरसे/Respon…

Sebco Property Private Limited, Trichy vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central - 2, Chennai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1592/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1592/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Sebco Property Private Limited Pcit (Central) बनाम/ 24D, Mahalakshmi Nagar, Chennai-2. Vs. K.K. Nagar, Trichy-620 021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-0810-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman (Ca) - Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-03-2025 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 (Central), Chennai-2 (Pr.Cit) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 Vide Impugned Order Dated 25-03-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S.153A R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Act On 31-03-2022. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: - 1. That The Revision Order Dated 25.03.2024 Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central - 2, Chennai ["Ld. Pcit"] U/S. 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ["Act"] Is Without Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Barred By Limitation. 2. That The Assessment Order Dated 31.03.2022 Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.143(3) R.W.S 153A Of The Act Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Revenue, Thus The Ld. Pcit Erred In Initiating Revisionary Proceedings U/S.263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 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. 9. Therefore, on the given facts, the impugned revisi…

Mohammed Munim Prop. M.N. Enterprises, Ludhiana vs. Pr. C.I.T., Ludhiana

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 176/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate ) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kusum Bansal (CIT )- Ld. DR
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. 8. Therefore, on the given facts, the impugned revis…

Indiabulls Commercial Credit Limited, New Delhi vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2844/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 94(7)

…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 Page | 23 ITA No. 2844/Mum/2024 Α.Υ. 2019-20 Indiabulls Commercial Credit Limited interests of the revenue. The question as to when an order can be termed as “erroneou…

Ashokkumar Projects India Pvt. Ltd., Porbandar vs. The Pr. CIT, Jamnagar

In the result, appear of the assessee is allowed

ITA 83/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.83/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Ashokkumar Projects India P. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax, 4Th Floor, Manek Centre, P.N. Cholera Arcade, M.G. Road Opposite, Bhaveshwar Mahadev Marg, Jamnagar - 361008 Temple, Porbandar – 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aamca5891Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 192Section 194CSection 263Section 40

…ion 263 of the Act, speaks of revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. As per the said section and various judicial precedents including those of Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Malabal Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (243 ITR 83) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282), in order to invoke provisions of section 263 of the Act, twin conditions need to be satisfied exhaustively, viz. first, the order sought to be revised should be erroneous and secondly, it should be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Such occasions arise when the assessing officer, while passing assessment order u/s. 143(3) did not have…

Vinay Ramsharandas Agrawal, Nagpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Nagpur

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 110/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.110/Nag./2023 (Assessment Year :2017–18) Vinay Ramsharandas Agrawal 1, Agrawal Estate, Amravati Road ……………. Appellant Wadi, Nagpur 440 023 PAN – ABGPA3839E v/s Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Nagpur–2, Nagpur Assessee by : Shri Kishore P. Dewani Revenue by : Shri Sandipkumar Salunke Date of Hearing – 06/01/2025 Date of Order – 21/03/2025 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M. The instant appeal by the assessee is emanating from the impugned order d…

Genus Power Infrastructures Limitted, Noida vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax(Centeral), Lucknow

ITA 74/LKW/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kumar, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

…Ld. CIT was not justified invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act. The finding of the Ld. CIT that there was lack of enquiry, is factually incorrect, the Ld. AR submitted. Inter alia, the Ld. AR relied upon the decisions in CIT vs. Max India Limited 295 ITR 282 (S.C.); CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Limited 332 ITR 167 (Del.); CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 (Del.); CIT vs. Vikas Polymers 236 CTR 476/194 Тахтап 57; Hari Iron Trading Company vs. CIT, 263 ITR437 (P&H); Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs.CIT,243 ITR 83(S.C.); CIT vs. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. 331 ITR 192 (Del.); CIT vs. International T…

Shree Auro Iron Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 788/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Pravin Saraswant, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 145ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 263Section 48

…as taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue unless the view taken by the Income Tax Officer is unsustainable in law” 1.10.2 CIT v. Max India Limited [2007] 295 ITR 282 ) (SC) Held at para No. 1: “Suffice it to state that in this particular case when the order of the Commissioner was passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act two views on the said word 'profits' existed. In our view the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 8…

Aptiv Connections Systems India Private Limited, Kochi vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 675/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Mar 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Aptiv Connecton Systems India P. Ltd. .......... Appellant 7/600A&B, Arakkunnam-Pulikkamali Road, Mulanthuruthy P.O., Kochi 682013 [Pan: Aaacf5044Q] Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Corporate Circle 1(1), Kochi Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.03.2025

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 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”. 7. In the light of the above legal position, we proceed to examine the facts of the present case to fi…