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

Issues it is cited on

malabar industrial inadequate enquiry revision u/s 263 assessment order erroneous lack of enquiry revision under section 263 section 263(1)erroneous and prejudicial section 263 section 26 principal commissioner of income-tax non-application of mind

Judgments citing CIT v. Max India Ltd.

Bank of Maharashra, Pune vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

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

ITA 682/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan and Mrs. Lalitha RameswaranFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40A(7)

…re, the Ld. PCIT without applying his mind should not have invoked the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. He also relied on the following decisions: i) PCIT vs. R.K. Jain Infra Projects (P.) Ltd. (2024) 159 taxmann.com 387 (SC) ii) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) 13 iii) PCIT vs. R.K. Jain Infra Projects (P.) Ltd. (2023) 150 taxmann.com 313 (Del) iv) PCIT vs. Clix Finance India (P.) Ltd. (2024) 160 taxmann.com 357 (Del) v) Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. DIT (IT) (2010) 191 Taxman 62 (Bom) vi) CIT vs. M/s. A.R. Builders & Developers P Ltd. (2020) 425 ITR 272 (Mad) vii) KN Agarwal vs. CIT (1991) 18…

Mikuni India Private Limited, Alwar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, PCIT

12. In view of the above discussion, we find merit in this appeal, when the assessment order dated 27

ITA 745/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: passing the impugned order, Learned PCIT issued notice to the assessee, as Learned PCIT found that the Assessing Officer, while framing the above said assessment and the making addition, did not initiate penalty proceedings 270A of the Act. Learned PCIT was of the view that penalty proceedings were to be initiated under the said provision on account of misreporting of income, which came to be added by the Assessing Officer to the total income of the assessee company. It being a Transfer Pri

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Agarwal, C.A. (Through V.C.) &For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 194C(5)Section 263Section 270ASection 92CSection 94C

…ourt in the case of CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers [259 ITR 502]  Copy of decision of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India Limited [388 ITR 81].  Copy of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India Limited [295 ITR 282].  Copy of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (395 ITR 1].  Copy of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. [343 ITR 329]. Herein, as noticed above, the Assessing Officer has nowhere observed, while passing the assessment order that it was a ca…

Pink City Jewel House Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur

ITA 598/JPR/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

For Appellant: Sh. Siddharth Ranka, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Saurav Harsh, Adv.&

Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144oSection 14ASection 263Section 69

…it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, unless the view taken by the AO is totally unsustainable in law. We draw strength from case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and also from the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). • Hon'ble ITAT Chandigarh Bench in Tarlochan Singh v. DCIT (2024) 1 TMI 795 has held: Nature of Income as surrendered during survey proceedings - surrendered amount as "business income" OR "deemed income" i.e income from undisclosed sources - CIT (Appeals) sustained the surrendered amount u/s 68 of credit entry and u/s 69 of excess stock -…

Kandaiah Muthukrishnan, Chennai vs. Dcir, CC-2(4), Chennai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1214/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1214/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Shri Kandaiah Muthukrishnan Dcit बनाम/ #161, Rangarajapuram Main Road, Central Circle-2(4) Vs. Kodambakkam, Chennai-600 024. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aftpm-5826-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16-12-2024

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘सी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार अ/वाल ,लेखा सद3 एवं माननीय +ी मनु कुमार िग7र, "ाियक सद3 के सम8। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1214/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Shri Kandaiah Muthukrishnan DCIT बनाम/ #161, Rangarajapuram Main Road, Central Circle-2(4) Vs. Kodambakkam, Chennai-600 024. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AFTPM-5826-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri G. Baskar (Advocate)-…

Alok Vijawat, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Udaipur

ITA 605/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

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

…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 inter…

Sunitha, Coimbatore vs. PCIT -1, Coim, Batore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2013/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2013/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Sunitha, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No.30, Sivaji Colony, Income Tax -1, Thadagam Road, Coimbatore Edayarpalayam, Coimbatore 641 025. [Pan: Bhqps 4789G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, IRS, CIT

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 69

…balance Sheet etc by which the assessee on 18.04.2021 duly replied to the show cause notice dated 16.04.2021 and explained the query raised. 12. We find that as mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Max India Ltd case (2008) 166 Taxman 188 SC; 295 ITR 282 (SC), the ld.Assessing Officer has adopted one of the courses permissible in law after perusing the reply and documents submitted. 13. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Design & Automation Engineers (Bombay) (P.) Ltd [2009] 177 Taxman 9 (Bombay) / [2010] 323 ITR 632 (Bombay) held as under: ‘’6. We have consi…

Agricom Foods Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Mumbai-2, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2716/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Dr.K.R.Subhash,CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 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…

Agricom Foods Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2709/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Dr.K.R.Subhash,CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

Chaitalee Sachin Deokar, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, -It -2, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2806/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69Section 69BSection 69C

…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." 13 In the instant case, the assessing officer has reopened the assessment only to assess the income, if any, that has escaped the assessment for the years under consideration. The assessments have been reopened only on the basis of the impugned incriminating document found at the premises of M/s RNS infrastructure. We also notice that the searc…

M/S. Anabond Ltd., Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai-1

In the result, all the grounds appeal raised by the assesse are allowed

ITA 1625/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1625/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/S. Anabond Limited The Principal Commissioner Of Type-Ii, 36, Dr. V.S.I. Estate Income Tax-1 Tiruvanmiyur, Chennai Chennai-600041. [Pan: Aacca4158Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri B.Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024

For Appellant: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35Section 5Section 80I

…oking his revisionary powers u/s 263. It trite law that revisionary authority cannot be exercised merely because such authority holds a view different than that taken by lower authority. In this regard, we have noted that in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd.(295 ITR 282)(SC), the Hon’ble :- 9 -: Supreme Court held that “…At the relevant time, two views were possible on the word 'profits' in the proviso to section 80HHC(3). It is true that vide 2005 Amendment the law has been clarified with retrospective effect by insertion of the word 'loss' in the new proviso. Suffice it to state that in instant case when the…

Max Hospitals and Allied Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Mumbai -3, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2907/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2018-19 Max Hospitals & Principal Allied Services Commissioner Of 401, 4Th Floor, Income Tax Mumbai- 3 Man Excellenza, Room No.612, Vs. S. V. Road, 6Th Floor, Vile Parle (W.), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 400056 Maharishi Karve Road, Pan: Aagcr9198D Mumbai- 400020. Appellant : Respondent

For Appellant: RespondentFor Respondent: Ms. Sanyogia Nagpal (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 56(2)(viib)

…sion of section 263 on the same issue is not justified: 1. Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Paville Projects Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2023) 453 ITR 447 2. Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd. reported in (2007) 295 ITR 282 3. Decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi reported in (2017) 390 ITR 292 4. Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Malabar Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in (2000) 243 ITR 83 5. Decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd reported in (2010) 323 ITR 206 3.2. The Ld.AR su…

Shivam Readymix Private Limited, Neemuch vs. The PCIT(Central), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 412/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 69C

…passing order u/s 263, directions have been issued to verify the applicability of provisions of section 69C. Even, ld. PCIT has changed her view in Revision Order as to the one that was taken in show cause notice issued. In this regard, reliance is placed on: 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT v. Max India Ltd. The phrase “prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue” in section 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…

Goutam Ghosh, Howrah vs. P.C.I.T., Kolkata - 13, Kolkata

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

ITA 1080/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 263Section 45Section 56(2)(X)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'बी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री राजपाल यादव, उपाध्यक्ष (कोलकाता क्षेत्र) एवं श्री संजय अवस्थी, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before SRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT & SRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 1080/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Goutam Ghosh….……………......................................................Appellant [PAN: ADQPG 7993 P] Vs. PCIT, Kolkata-13..................................................................Respondent Appearances: Assessee represented by: Miraj D. Shah, AR. Department represented by: Abhi…

St.Joseph'S Educational Trust, Chennai vs. PCIT Central Chennai - 1, Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1620/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.1618 & 1619 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-2021) St. Joseph’S Institute Of Science & Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Technology Trust, Tax, No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Central, Chennai -1 Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. [Pan: Aahts 9943B] आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1620 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-2021) St. Joseph’S Educational Trust, Vs The Principal Commissioner Of Income No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Tax, Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. Central, Chennai -1 [Pan: Aamts 3888G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT

Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’’"ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनु कुमार िग"र, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी जगदीश, लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपील सं./ ITA Nos.1618 & 1619 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-2021) St. Joseph’s Institute of Science and Vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Technology Trust, Tax, No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Central, Chennai -1 Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. [PAN: AAHTS 9943B] आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1620 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष"…

St.Joseph'S Institute of Science and Technology Trust, Chennai vs. PCIT Central Chennai - 1, Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1619/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT

Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

St.Joseph'S Institute of Science and Technology Trust, Chennai vs. PCIT Central Chennai - 1, Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1618/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

…2 ITA Nos.1618 to 1620/Chny/2024 St. Joseph's Educational Trust has filed an appeal for assessment year 2020-2021 against order dated 31.03.2024 of Id. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Chennai-1. Since the issues are common in all these appeals, they are heard together and are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of brevity we take up St. Joseph's Institute of Science and Technology Trust appeal in ITA No.1618/Chny/2024 for assessment year 2018-2019 as lead case. Our decision on this issue will equally apply to appeal Nos. 1619 & 1620/Chny/2024 for assessment years 2020-2021 also. 2. Sans…

Mailam Subramaniya Educational Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT Central Circle 3(3), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1237/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1237/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Mailam Subramaniya Swamy Dcit बनाम/ Educational Trust Central Circle-3(3) 54, Meenatchi Nagar, Poonthottam Chennai. Vs. Villupuram-605 602. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatm-3311-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri J. Prabhakar (Fca)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11-09-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-10-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri J. Prabhakar (FCA)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 13(1)(c)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 161(2)Section 164Section 164(2)Section 263

…t to public charities, while the gravamen of charges on breach of clauses in trust deed is not addressed qua the Indian Trust Act 1882. 10. The CIT is not justified in deliberately misinterpreting the decision of the Supreme Court in Max India Ltd case [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) as if the decision confers unfettered right upon the CIT to revise an assessment u/s.263 while the said decision unequivocally favour the appellant. 11. The CIT is not justified in attributing contumacious conduct on the Assessing Officer framing the assessment as to non-application of mind when the subject matter of payment of remuneration…

Sri Manakula Vinayaga Educational Trust, Puducherry vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(3), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1236/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1236/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sri Manakula Vinayaga Educational Trust Dcit बनाम/ 24, Mariamman Koil Street, Madagadipet, Central Circle-3(3) Vs. Puducherry-605 107. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatm-9599-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri J. Prabhakar (Fca) - Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11-09-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-10-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri J. Prabhakar (FCA) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 161(2)Section 164Section 164(2)Section 263

…ct to public charities, while the gravamen of charges on breach of clauses in trust deed is not addressed qua the Indian Trust Act 1882. 9. The CIT is not justified in deliberately misinterpreting the decision of the Supreme Court in Max India Ltd case [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) as if the decision confers unfettered right upon the CIT to revise an assessment u/s.263 while the said decision unequivocally favour the appellant. 10. The CIT is not justified in attributing contumacious conduct on the Assessing Officer framing the assessment as to non-application of mind when the subject matter of payment of remuneration…

Chandrakant Ganpati Vaijapure, Udgir vs. PCIT, Nashik-1, Nashik

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

ITA 982/PUN/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.980/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2019-20

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 69

…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 not a plausible view. In a case where the Assessing Officer examined the claim, took one of the plausible view, the assessment order cannot be termed as an “erroneous”. Adverting to the facts of the present, case, admittedly, the excess stock and excess cash found d…

Lakshmibai Chandrakant Vaijapure, Udgir vs. Shivraj Bhaskarrao Morey, PCIT, Nashik 1, Nashik

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

ITA 980/PUN/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.980/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2019-20

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 69