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.

Shankar Roadways, Burdwan vs. ACIT, Cen. Cir. 1(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 703/KOL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘A’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Shri Rakesh Mishra, Accountant Member I.T.A. No.703/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shankar Roadways ………………....….......…....………....Appellant NA Dr. B. C. Roy Avenue, Durgapur, Burdwan-713201 (PAN: AAYFS3240A) vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax ...............................…..…..... Respondent Central-1, Kolkata. Appearances by: Shri Mita Rizvi, AR appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT-DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of con…

Paradip Port Authority, Jagatsinghpur vs. DCIT, Circle1(1), Cuttack

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 210/CTK/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Sept 2024AY 2005-06
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 260Section 263

…t 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.” 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd., reported in [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC), has also expressed the same view and held as under :- The phrase "prejudicial to the interests of the revenue” 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 interests of…

Paradip Port Authority, Jagatsinghpur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 209/CTK/2024[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Sept 2024AY 2004-05
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 260Section 263

…t 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.” 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd., reported in [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC), has also expressed the same view and held as under :- The phrase "prejudicial to the interests of the revenue” 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 interests of…

Paradip Port Authority, Jagatsinghpur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 208/CTK/2024[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Sept 2024AY 2003-04
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 260Section 263

…t 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.” 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd., reported in [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC), has also expressed the same view and held as under :- The phrase "prejudicial to the interests of the revenue” 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 interests of…

Sushila Bhaurao Deshmukh, Amravati vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 76/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: ShriK.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Salunke
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 54BSection 54E

…r A.Y. 2017–18, order dated 27/03/2023; and xvi) Order u/s 155(15) in assessee‘s case for A.Y. 2017–18. 7. The learned Counsel for the assessee further placed reliance on the following case laws in support of his arguments:– i) CIT v/s Max India Ltd., [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC); ii) CIT v/s Gabrial India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (SC); iii) M/s. Ashok ShrichandDaryani (HUF), ITAno.110/Nag./2018, order dated 27/07/2023 (ITAT–Nagpur); iv) PCIT v/s Kanin (India), [2022] 141 taxmann.com 83 (P&H); v) VipulModi v/s PCIT [2022] 139 taxmann.com 89 (Mum.); and vi) CIT v/s Mr.Subhash Vinayak Supnekar, Income Tax Appeal no.1009…

Mr.Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1514/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1514/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Mr. Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen Pcit (Central) बनाम/ 42, Maraikayar Street, Ii Floor, Chennai-1. Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Vs. Chennai-600 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aawpi-0038-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Lavanya (Ca) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Lavanya (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 253(1)Section 263Section 69A

…1 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.1514/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Mr. Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen PCIT (Central) बनाम/ 42, Maraikayar Street, II floor, Chennai-1. Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Vs. Chennai-600 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAWPI-0038-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Ms. Lavanya (CA) - Ld. AR…

Mr.Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1513/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1508/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1509/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1510/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1511/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1512/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1513/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Mr. Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen Pcit (Central) बनाम/ 42, Maraikayar Street, Ii Floor, Chennai-1. Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Vs. Chennai-600 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aawpi-0038-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Lavanya (Ca) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-08-2024

For Appellant: Ms. Lavanya (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 153CSection 263

…1 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 1. आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1508/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1509/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1510/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1511/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1512/Chny/20…

Mr.Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1512/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1508/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1509/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1510/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1511/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1512/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1513/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Mr. Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen Pcit (Central) बनाम/ 42, Maraikayar Street, Ii Floor, Chennai-1. Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Vs. Chennai-600 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aawpi-0038-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Lavanya (Ca) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-08-2024

For Appellant: Ms. Lavanya (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 153CSection 263

…1 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 1. आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1508/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1509/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1510/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1511/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1512/Chny/20…

Mr.Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1511/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1508/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1509/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1510/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1511/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1512/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1513/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Mr. Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen Pcit (Central) बनाम/ 42, Maraikayar Street, Ii Floor, Chennai-1. Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Vs. Chennai-600 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aawpi-0038-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Lavanya (Ca) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-08-2024

For Appellant: Ms. Lavanya (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 153CSection 263

…1 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 1. आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1508/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1509/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1510/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1511/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1512/Chny/20…

Mr.Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1510/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1508/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1509/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1510/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1511/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1512/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1513/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Mr. Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen Pcit (Central) बनाम/ 42, Maraikayar Street, Ii Floor, Chennai-1. Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Vs. Chennai-600 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aawpi-0038-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Lavanya (Ca) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-08-2024

For Appellant: Ms. Lavanya (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 153CSection 263

…1 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 1. आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1508/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1509/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1510/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1511/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1512/Chny/20…

Mr.Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-1(4), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1509/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1508/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1509/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1510/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1511/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1512/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1513/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Mr. Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen Pcit (Central) बनाम/ 42, Maraikayar Street, Ii Floor, Chennai-1. Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Vs. Chennai-600 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aawpi-0038-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Lavanya (Ca) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-08-2024

For Appellant: Ms. Lavanya (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 153CSection 263

…1 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 1. आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1508/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1509/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1510/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1511/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1512/Chny/20…

Mr.Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1508/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1508/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1509/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1510/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1511/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1512/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1513/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Mr. Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen Pcit (Central) बनाम/ 42, Maraikayar Street, Ii Floor, Chennai-1. Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Vs. Chennai-600 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aawpi-0038-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Lavanya (Ca) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-08-2024

For Appellant: Ms. Lavanya (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 153CSection 263

…1 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 1. आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1508/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1509/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1510/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1511/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1512/Chny/20…

Rashleela Enterprises Private Limited, Jaipur vs. The PCIT (Central), Jaipur

ITA 461/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Sept 2024AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153DSection 263

…the interests of the Revenue. If one of them is absent - if the order of the Income Tax Officer is erroneous but is not prejudicial to th Revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to the Revenue recourse cannot be had to section 263(1) of the Act." 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…

Smt. Sharda, Harsud, Khandwa vs. The PCIT-1, Indore

In the result, appeals of the assesse in ITANo

ITA 263/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Premnarayan Pcit (1) 31, Somgaon Khurd, Aaykar Bhawan Harsud, Vs. Indore Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cjzpp1164J Smt. Sharda Pcit (1) A/45, Naya Harsud, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Khandwa Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Fdxps2997P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263Section 54B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Shri Premnarayan PCIT (1) 31, Somgaon Khurd, Aaykar Bhawan Harsud, Vs. Indore Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: CJZPP1164J Smt. Sharda PCIT (1) A/45, Naya Harsud, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Khandwa Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: FDXPS2997P Assessee by Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, ARs Revenue by Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement 30.08.2024 O R D…

Shri Premnarayan, Harsud, Khandwa vs. The PCIT-1, Indore

In the result, appeals of the assesse in ITANo

ITA 262/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Premnarayan Pcit (1) 31, Somgaon Khurd, Aaykar Bhawan Harsud, Vs. Indore Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cjzpp1164J Smt. Sharda Pcit (1) A/45, Naya Harsud, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Khandwa Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Fdxps2997P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263Section 54B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Shri Premnarayan PCIT (1) 31, Somgaon Khurd, Aaykar Bhawan Harsud, Vs. Indore Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: CJZPP1164J Smt. Sharda PCIT (1) A/45, Naya Harsud, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Khandwa Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: FDXPS2997P Assessee by Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, ARs Revenue by Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement 30.08.2024 O R D…

Narendra Kumar Agrawal, Burhanpur vs. PCIT Indore-1, Indore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 345/IND/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaninarendra Kumar Agrawal Pcit (1) 203, Ck Campus Aaykar Bhawan Bahadarpur Road Vs. Indore Burhanpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adapa0131B Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2024

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Narendra Kumar Agrawal PCIT (1) 203, CK Campus Aaykar Bhawan Bahadarpur Road Vs. Indore Burhanpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: ADAPA0131B Assessee by Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, ARs Revenue by Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 20.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement 29.08.2024 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the revision order dated 11.03.2024 of Pr. Co…

Keller (M) Sdn Bhd, Chennai vs. DCIT Intl Tax 1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1319/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1319/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Keller (M) Sdn Bhd, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, Centennial Square, International Taxation 1(2) No.6A, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. [Pan: Aagck 8014M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Ashik Shah, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

For Appellant: Shri. Ashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 239Section 263

…ng cases and contended that the impugned order of ld. CIT is liable to be set aside. The referred cases are reproduced in chart as under:- A. Revision under Section 263 of the Act:- Sl.No Name of the case Forum Citation Page No. 1 Max India Ltd. Supreme Court 295 ITR 282 3 Max India Ltd. HC-P&H 268 ITR 128 5 3 Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. Supreme Court 243 ITR 83 7 4 Virtusa Consulting Services HC-Madras 442 ITR 385 12 (P.) Ltd. 5 Sunbeam Auto Ltd. HC-Delhi 332 ITR 167 22 6 Spectra Shares & Scrips HC-Andhra 354 ITR 35 33 (P.) Ltd. Pradesh 7 Saravana Developers HC-Karnataka 387 ITR 239 57 8 Chemsworth (P.) Ltd. HC-…

Raghuleela Estates Private Limited, Bandra, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2595/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A/RFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT, D/R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 24BSection 263

…d so and it is for that reason that the Tribunal did not approve his action and set aside his order. We do not find any infirmity in the above conclusion of the Tribunal.” 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd. reported in [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC), had the occasion to consider a similar challenge to 263 proceedings and held as under:- “1. 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 2005 amendment the law has been clarified with retrospective effect by insertion of the word 'loss' in the new pro…

Raghuleela Estates Private Limited, Bandra, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2594/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A/RFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT, D/R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…n that the Tribunal did not approve his action and set aside his order. We do not find any infirmity in the above conclusion of the Tribunal.” I.T.A. No. 2594/Mum/2024 12 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd. reported in [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC), had the occasion to consider a similar challenge to 263 proceedings and held as under:- “1. 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 2005 amendment the law has been clarified with retrospective effect by insertion of the word 'loss' in the new pro…

M/S. R.K. Investments, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-3(1), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1159/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1159/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. R.K. Investments Dcit Ground Floor, Block-Iv, Non-Corporate Circle-3(1) बनाम/ No.184-187,Temple Steps, Chennai. Vs. Anna Salai Little Mount, Chennai-600 015. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafr-3413-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31-07-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12-08-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 2(14)(lii)Section 263Section 45

…to have accepted that the land sold was Agricultural land. 22. When two views possible and the AO has taken one possible view, order not erroneous. Appellant relies on the following decisions: Malabar Industrial Co Ltd v CIT 243 ITR 83 SC. CIT v Max Inda Ltd 295 ITR 282 SC. CIT Vs Mepco Industries Ltd 294 ITR 121 (Mad). 23. [2023] 147 taxmann.com 469(Orissa) HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Commissioner of Income-tax v . Dhaneswar Rath Institute of Engineering & Medical Sciences • Where Assessing Officer during scrutiny proceeding had allowed assessee's claim of exemption under section 11 in regard to depreciation as applic…