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)

Surplus Finvest Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax Mumbai-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2682/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2015-16 Surplus Finvest Private Limited, Principal Commissioner Of Floor 3, A Block, Income Tax, Shivsagar Estate, Vs. Mumbai-3, Dr. Annie Besant Road, 6Th Floor, Nehru Centre Transit Camp, Aayakar Bhavan, Worli, Mumbai-400 018. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aafcs0533G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi &For Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 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.” 8. The principles laid down by the courts are that the Ld.PCIT cannot invoke his powers of revision under section 263 if the AO has conducted enquiries and applied his mind and has taken a possible view of the matter. In such cases, merely because the Ld.PCIT has got a different opinion of the matter, the same will not entitle him to revise th…

Banarsi Das Shyam Sunder, Bazaza Bazar vs. PCIT, Income Tax Department

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 722/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 722/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Banarsi Das Shyam Sunder Bazaza Bazar, Alwar बनाम Vs. PCIT, Income Tax Department स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAQFB 3593 D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. Kranti Mehta, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 05/02/2025 उदघ

For Appellant: Sh. Kranti Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT

Section 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…, unless the view taken by the AO is totally unsustainable in law. We draw strength from the order of the Honble 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 in…

Sanket Jhabak, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Raipur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 479/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate

Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

…erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. We find that the Hon’ble Apex Court had thereafter reiterated its aforesaid view in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). 30. We further find that the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Mahavir Ashok Enterprises (P) Ltd. (2024) 167 taxmann.com 396 (Chhattisgarh) had after, inter alia, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra), observed, that when the A.O had adopted…

Sampat Lal Jhabak, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Raipur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 478/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate

Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

…erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. We find that the Hon’ble Apex Court had thereafter reiterated its aforesaid view in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). 30. We further find that the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Mahavir Ashok Enterprises (P) Ltd. (2024) 167 taxmann.com 396 (Chhattisgarh) had after, inter alia, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra), observed, that when the A.O had adopted…

Smt. Pushpa Jhabak, Raipur vs. PCIT-1, Raipur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 237/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate

Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

…erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. We find that the Hon’ble Apex Court had thereafter reiterated its aforesaid view in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). 30. We further find that the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Mahavir Ashok Enterprises (P) Ltd. (2024) 167 taxmann.com 396 (Chhattisgarh) had after, inter alia, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra), observed, that when the A.O had adopted…

Smt. Tilottama Jhabak, Raipur vs. PCIT-1, Raipur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 236/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate

Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

…erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. We find that the Hon’ble Apex Court had thereafter reiterated its aforesaid view in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). 30. We further find that the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Mahavir Ashok Enterprises (P) Ltd. (2024) 167 taxmann.com 396 (Chhattisgarh) had after, inter alia, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra), observed, that when the A.O had adopted…

Smt. Sushila Devi Jhabak, Raipur vs. PCIT-1, Raipur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 235/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate

Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

…erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. We find that the Hon’ble Apex Court had thereafter reiterated its aforesaid view in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). 30. We further find that the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Mahavir Ashok Enterprises (P) Ltd. (2024) 167 taxmann.com 396 (Chhattisgarh) had after, inter alia, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra), observed, that when the A.O had adopted…

Sanjog Jhabak L/H of Late Gautam Chand Jhabak, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 234/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate

Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

…erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. We find that the Hon’ble Apex Court had thereafter reiterated its aforesaid view in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). 30. We further find that the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Mahavir Ashok Enterprises (P) Ltd. (2024) 167 taxmann.com 396 (Chhattisgarh) had after, inter alia, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra), observed, that when the A.O had adopted…

Sanjog Jhabak, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 233/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate

Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

…erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. We find that the Hon’ble Apex Court had thereafter reiterated its aforesaid view in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). 30. We further find that the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Mahavir Ashok Enterprises (P) Ltd. (2024) 167 taxmann.com 396 (Chhattisgarh) had after, inter alia, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra), observed, that when the A.O had adopted…

Munnuswamy Rajesh Chintakunta, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 344/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…”, and in a case where two views are possible, and the learned Assessing Officer adopts one such pleasurable view, it cannot be deemed erroneous merely because the DCIT disagrees. He also placed reliance on the decisions in CIT vs. Max India Ltd., reported in 295 ITR 282(SC., and Srinivasa Hatcheries (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2002] 81 ITD 36(Hyd) in support of his argument that a difference of opinion does not justify invoking Section 263, and the view taken by the learned Assessing Officer in adopting one of the permissible views cannot be considered prejudicial to the revenue. 5. It is his further argument that the…

Mujmmeel, Kota vs. ACIT-Central Circle, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 620/JPR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Miss. Swatika Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT a

Section 115BSection 133ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 620/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2020-21 cuke Mujmmeel ACIT, Vs. 7-B Friends Colony, Gramin Central Circle, Police Road Borkheda, Kota Kota LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AVDPM 7832 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Miss. Swatika Jha, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by…

Malabar Regional Co-Op Milk Producers Union Ltd, Calicut vs. ACIT Circle 2(1), Calicut

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 318/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Malabar Regional Co-Op. Milk Producers .......... Appellant Union Ltd. Peringolam, Kunnamangalam 673571 [Pan: Aaaam1011G] Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle - 2(1), Kozhikode Appellant By: Shri R.V. Viswanathan, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri R.V. Viswanathan, CAFor 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”. 9. In the light of the above we proceed to examine the facts of the present case, whether the AO had e…

Pradip Chhaganbhai Dalsaniya, Rajkot vs. Pr. CIT, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 367/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.367/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Pradip Chhaganbhai Dalsaniya Vs. Pr Cit, 3Rd Floor, Apex Apartment, Somnath Rajkot-1 Society University Road Rajkot 360005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akmpd7956N (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 139(4)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263

…ITA No.367/RJT/2024 (AY 2013-14) Pradip Chhaganbhai Dalsaniya v. PCIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.367/RJT/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Pradip Chhaganbhai Dalsaniya Vs. Pr CIT, 3rd Floor, Apex Apartment, Somnath Rajkot-1 Society University Road Rajkot 360005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AKMPD7956N (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Mehul Ranpura, AR Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 07/11/…

Jarnail Singh, Bilaspur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 395/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 263

…n Marketing and Advertising Co. Ltd. 341 ITR 180 (Del HC) • Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 437 (P & H) • CTT vs. Gabriel (India) Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR-108 (Bom) • Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243-ITR-83 (SC) • CIT vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282(SC) • CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. reported in 332 ITR 16(Del) • Sh. Narian Singla vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana 62 Taxman.com 255(Chd) • Ganpati International Vs PCIT (ITA 932/Chandi/2019) 27. It was further submitted that on perusal of the order passed under section 263, the PCIT mentions in para 4.6 that the assess…

Jarnail Singh, Bilaspur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 394/CHANDI/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jan 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 263

…n Marketing and Advertising Co. Ltd. 341 ITR 180 (Del HC) • Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 437 (P & H) • CTT vs. Gabriel (India) Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR-108 (Bom) • Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243-ITR-83 (SC) • CIT vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282(SC) • CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. reported in 332 ITR 16(Del) • Sh. Narian Singla vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana 62 Taxman.com 255(Chd) • Ganpati International Vs PCIT (ITA 932/Chandi/2019) 27. It was further submitted that on perusal of the order passed under section 263, the PCIT mentions in para 4.6 that the assess…

Shiv Vegpro Private Limited, Kota vs. PCIT-Udaipur, Udaipur

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

ITA 1014/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, (Adv.) &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, (CIT-DR)

Section 147Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ted as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, unless the view taken by the AO is totally unsustainable in law. Kindly refer Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v/s CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC). 1.2 Also kindly refer 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 inte…

A T and S India Private Limited, Nanjangud, Mysore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1220/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Pcit, Kolkata-2 A T & S India Private Limited Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 12A, Industrial Area Nanjangud Chowringhee Square, Vs. H.O, Mysore-571301, Karnataka Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca2930J Assessee By : Shri Anup Sinha, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263

…t to appellate orders. The ld. AR therefore submitted that the assessment framed by the ld. AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In defense of his argument, the ld. AR relied on the decision of CIT Vs. Max Indian Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) and CIT Vs. G M Mittal Stainless Steel Pvt. Ltd. (2003) 263 ITR 255 (SC). The ld. AR also referred to the decision of CIT VS. Gabriel India Ld. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom). Finally, the ld. AR submitted that the jurisdiction invoked by the ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act is invalid and bad in law and therefore, may kindly be quashed. AT & S India P…

Sun Developers and Builders Pvt. Ltd., Korba vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Korba

ITA 528/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 528/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sun Developers & Builders Private Limited Near Bansal Agency, Darri Road, Korba-495 677 (C.G.) Pan: Aaocs0895A

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…d as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the Income Tax Officer is unsustainable in law. The aforesaid view was thereafter reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 213 CTR 266 (SC). Once again it was observed that where two views are possible and the Income-Tax Officer has taken one of the view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, unless the view taken by the Income Tax Officer is unsustainable in law. Also support is drawn f…

Horizon Dwellings Private Limited, Bareilly vs. PCIT, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 77/LKW/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriahorizon Dwellings Pvt Ltd V. Pcit, Bareilly, Navjeevan Appartments, Income Tax Department, Opposite Parag Factory, Bareilly (Up)-243001. Badaun Road, Kargaina, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aacch6839F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl

Section 143(3)Section 263

…er passed by the Assessing Officer accepting the same as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi v CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC). CIT Vs Max India Ltd (2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) 213 CTR 266 (SC) I. In our view at the relevant time two views were possible on the word "profits" in the proviso to Section 80HHC(3). It is true that vide the 2005 amendment the law has been clarified with retrospective effect by insertion of the word "loss" in the new proviso. We express no opinion on the scope of the said amendment of 200…

Shri Chetan Sharma, Kanpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Kanpur

In the result, both appeals are allowed

ITA 343/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl

Section 153DSection 263

…32 of the Act in the case of the assessee. Thus, impugned order of Ld. PCIT passed under section 132 of the Act is clearly inconsistent with this well settled principle laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court. (2.1.2) In the case of CIT v Max India Limited (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC): it was held that when the Assessing Officer takes one of the two view permissible in law and which the Commissioner does not agree with and which resulted in a loss of Revenue, it cannot be treated as erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is completely unsustainable in law. I…

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.

Surplus Finvest Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax Mumbai-3, Mumbai

Banarsi Das Shyam Sunder, Bazaza Bazar vs. PCIT, Income Tax Department

Sanket Jhabak, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Raipur

Sampat Lal Jhabak, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Raipur

Smt. Pushpa Jhabak, Raipur vs. PCIT-1, Raipur

Smt. Tilottama Jhabak, Raipur vs. PCIT-1, Raipur

Smt. Sushila Devi Jhabak, Raipur vs. PCIT-1, Raipur

Sanjog Jhabak L/H of Late Gautam Chand Jhabak, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

Sanjog Jhabak, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

Munnuswamy Rajesh Chintakunta, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

Mujmmeel, Kota vs. ACIT-Central Circle, Kota

Malabar Regional Co-Op Milk Producers Union Ltd, Calicut vs. ACIT Circle 2(1), Calicut

Pradip Chhaganbhai Dalsaniya, Rajkot vs. Pr. CIT, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

Jarnail Singh, Bilaspur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

Jarnail Singh, Bilaspur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

Shiv Vegpro Private Limited, Kota vs. PCIT-Udaipur, Udaipur

A T and S India Private Limited, Nanjangud, Mysore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-2, Kolkata

Sun Developers and Builders Pvt. Ltd., Korba vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Korba

Horizon Dwellings Private Limited, Bareilly vs. PCIT, Bareilly

Shri Chetan Sharma, Kanpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Kanpur