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.

Sriram Enterprises, Patna vs. PCIT (Central), Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 76/PAT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 76/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Sriram Enterprises,………………………..........Appellant C/O. Nirmal & Associates, Nepali Kothi, Opposite Gasoline Petrol Pump, Boring Road, Patna-800001 [Pan:Aarfs8853J] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Patna,…………………………………..……………..Respondent, Bihar-800001 Appearances By: Shri Nishant Maitin, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Md. A.H. Chowdhary, Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 5Th March, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 8Th, 2024 O R D E R

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

…ITA No. 76/PAT/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Sriram Enterprises IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA-PATNA ‘e-COURT’, KOLKATA [Hybrid Court Hearing] Before Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member I.T.A. No. 76/PAT/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Sriram Enterprises,………………………..........Appellant C/o. Nirmal & Associates, Nepali Kothi, Opposite Gasoline Petrol Pump, Boring Road, Patna-800001 [PAN:AARFS8853J] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Patna,…………………………………..……………..Respondent, Bihar-800001 Appearances by: Shri Nishant Maitin, C.A., appeared on b…

Deepak Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 809/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.809/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deepak Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd….…......................…...……………....Appellant 48/6, Suman Villa, 2Nd Floor, 155, Jessore Road, Kolkata-700055. [Pan: Aabcd1131H] Vs. Pcit, Asansol….....….........................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 08, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 07, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 30.12.2022 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Pr. Cit In Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act & Thereby Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame The Assessment Afresh. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Appeal Is Time-Barred By 158 Days. A Separate Application Of Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Wherein, It Has Been Pleaded That After Receipt Of The Impugned Order Of The Pr. Cit, The Assessee, Through Its Director, Shri Deep Kishan Saraf, Immediately Approached One Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal, Chartered

Section 253Section 263Section 5

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘बी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य के सम" Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A. No.809/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deepak Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd….…......................…...……………....Appellant 48/6, Suman Villa, 2nd Floor, 155, Jessore Road, Kolkata-700055. [PAN: AABCD1131H] vs. PCIT, Asansol….....….........................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances by: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, AR, appeared on behalf of the…

Gurjant Singh, Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 356/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri S. K.Gogra (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 271ASection 44ASection 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 356/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 cuke Shri Gurjant Singh Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur. Plot No. A-119, Shyam Mitra, Vs. Mandal Nagar, Road No. -5, Vishwakarma Nagar, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: GIXPS 4079 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri S. K.Gogra (C.…

Vijayalakshmi Enterprises, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward 15(1), Hyderabad

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 245/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.244 & 245/Hyd/2021 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17) Vijayalakshmi Enterprises Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 15(1) Pan:Aanfv2591E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Th Vijaya Lakshmi Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/04/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. TH Vijaya Lakshmi CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

…n 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 Page 19 of 22 ITA Nos 244 and 245 of 2021 Vijayalakshmi Enterprises case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). In the light of judicial precedents, we are of the considered view that the necessary enquiries and examination as reasonably expected have been carried out by the AO in discharge of his quasi-judicial function and he has taken a prudent, judicious and reasonable view in accepting the explanation of the assessee in support of the cash depos…

Vijayalakshmi Enterprises, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward 15(1), Hyderabad

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 244/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.244 & 245/Hyd/2021 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17) Vijayalakshmi Enterprises Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 15(1) Pan:Aanfv2591E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Th Vijaya Lakshmi Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/04/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. TH Vijaya Lakshmi CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

…n 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 Page 19 of 22 ITA Nos 244 and 245 of 2021 Vijayalakshmi Enterprises case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). In the light of judicial precedents, we are of the considered view that the necessary enquiries and examination as reasonably expected have been carried out by the AO in discharge of his quasi-judicial function and he has taken a prudent, judicious and reasonable view in accepting the explanation of the assessee in support of the cash depos…

M/S. Abhinav Enterprises, Indore vs. PCIT-2, Indore

ITA 339/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Abhinav Enterprises, Pr. Commissioner Of 85, Income-Tax-2, Ramchandra Nagar Extn., Indore. बनाम/ Aerodrum Road, Vs. Indore. (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan : Aanfa6300Q Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11.03.2024

Section 143(3)Section 263

…argued that it is judicially well-settled that if the AO has passed assessment-order accepting the explanations made by assessee, the assessment-order cannot be said to be erroneous. Reliance is also placed on following decisions: (a) CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (b) CIT Vs. DLF Power 329 ITR 289 (Delhi) (c) CIT Vs. Govindram Sakseria Trust 166 ITR 580 (MP) (d) CIT Vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. 171 ITR 141 (MP) Page 14 of 23 M/s. Abhinav Enterprises, Indore. Vs. PCIT-2, Indore. ITA No. 339/Ind/2023 – AY 2015-16 (e) CIT Vs. Gabriel (India) Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) 15. While arguing, Ld. AR also submitted…

Pincity Jewlhouse Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT, CC, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 63/JPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: the date of hearing." 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 58 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of 3

For Appellant: Sh. Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Ajey Malik, CIT
Section 10ASection 147Section 253(5)Section 263Section 5

…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). 28. Further it is settled law that initiation of 263 proceedings at the instance of Revenue Audit is impermissible. Reliance is placed upon: 20 Pinkcity Jewelhouse Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT • Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v. Sohana Woolen Mills (2006) 9 TMI 157 [Compilation 1-3] has held: A reference to the provisions of section 26…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 148/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…relied on “Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. Vs CIT”, (2000) 243 ITR 83 (S.C), wherein it was held that jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act cannot be assumed in respect of a debatable issue. As per the assessee, this was reiterated in “CIT Vs Max India Ltd.” (2007) 295 ITR 282 (S.C); “Mohammad Haji Adam &Co.”, (2019) 2 TMI 1632 Bombay High Court; “Paramshakti Distributors Pvt. Ltd.” (2019) 7 TMI 832 Bombay High Court. 9.1 The ld. PCIT, however, was not satisfied with the reply of the assessee. He observed that it had been noticed that the assessee had submitted documents which had already been filed during the ass…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 147/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…relied on “Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. Vs CIT”, (2000) 243 ITR 83 (S.C), wherein it was held that jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act cannot be assumed in respect of a debatable issue. As per the assessee, this was reiterated in “CIT Vs Max India Ltd.” (2007) 295 ITR 282 (S.C); “Mohammad Haji Adam &Co.”, (2019) 2 TMI 1632 Bombay High Court; “Paramshakti Distributors Pvt. Ltd.” (2019) 7 TMI 832 Bombay High Court. 9.1 The ld. PCIT, however, was not satisfied with the reply of the assessee. He observed that it had been noticed that the assessee had submitted documents which had already been filed during the ass…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…relied on “Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. Vs CIT”, (2000) 243 ITR 83 (S.C), wherein it was held that jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act cannot be assumed in respect of a debatable issue. As per the assessee, this was reiterated in “CIT Vs Max India Ltd.” (2007) 295 ITR 282 (S.C); “Mohammad Haji Adam &Co.”, (2019) 2 TMI 1632 Bombay High Court; “Paramshakti Distributors Pvt. Ltd.” (2019) 7 TMI 832 Bombay High Court. 9.1 The ld. PCIT, however, was not satisfied with the reply of the assessee. He observed that it had been noticed that the assessee had submitted documents which had already been filed during the ass…

Roop Kumar Chopra, Jaipur vs. PCIT Jaipur 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 264/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Him By The Assessee In Compliance To The Notice Notices Issued To Him U/S 142(1) As Well As U/S 143(2) Of The Act By The Ao As Erroneous In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue For The Purpose Of Section 263 Of The Act & Consequently Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed Dated 01-01-2021 To Be Made Afresh Made Is Most Arbitrarily, Unjust, Untenable & Liable To Be Vacated.’’

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…ome extra revenue. It is a well established law by now that section 263 does not contemplate mere substitution of the opinion of AO with that of CIT. 13 ROOP KUMAR CHOPRA VS PR. CIT-1, JAIPUR It has been held in the case of CIT v. Max India Ltd. reported in 295 ITR 282 (SC) that ‘every loss of revenue cannot be said to be prejudicial to the interests of revenue’, however in this case interestingly, there has been no loss at all to the revenue, accordingly, it cannot be said that the action of Ld. AO was prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Thus, no action u/s 263 is called for. This submission of assessee is…

Sara Spintex India Pvt. Ltd., Yavatmal vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Nagpur

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

ITA 56/NAG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.56/Nag/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Sara Spintex India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Pr.Cit, Gate No.97, 98, Nagpur-2 Dhamnagaon Road, Moha 445 001 Maharashtra Pan : Aapcs5098G Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Mahavir Atal
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…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. Now, we proceed to examine whether the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is erron…

Edisons Infrapower Multiventures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax Range -6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the asssessee are allowed

ITA 1208/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleedisons Infrapower & Vs. Pr. Cit, Range – 6, Multiventures Pvt Ltd Room No.501, 18Th Floor, A-Wing, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Marathon Futurex, Nm Bhavan, M.K.Road, Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaace1633J Appellant .. Respondent Essel Corporate Vs. Pr.Cit, Range – 6, Resources Pvt Ltd Room No. 501, 18Th Floor, A-Wing, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Marathon Futurex, Nm Bhavan, M.K.Road, Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aabce0473D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Jay Bhansali.ARFor Respondent: Shri Jogendra Singh.Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)

…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. Further In the case of Nagesh Knitwears P Ltd (2012)(345 ITR 135), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has elucidated and explained the scope of the provisions of sec. 263 of the Act and the same has been extracted by the ITA No. 1207 & 1208/Mum/2023 Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs. Goetze (India) Ltd (361 ITR 505) as under:- “Thus, in cas…

Essel Corporate Resources Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the asssessee are allowed

ITA 1207/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleedisons Infrapower & Vs. Pr. Cit, Range – 6, Multiventures Pvt Ltd Room No.501, 18Th Floor, A-Wing, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Marathon Futurex, Nm Bhavan, M.K.Road, Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaace1633J Appellant .. Respondent Essel Corporate Vs. Pr.Cit, Range – 6, Resources Pvt Ltd Room No. 501, 18Th Floor, A-Wing, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Marathon Futurex, Nm Bhavan, M.K.Road, Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aabce0473D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Jay Bhansali.ARFor Respondent: Shri Jogendra Singh.Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)

…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. Further In the case of Nagesh Knitwears P Ltd (2012)(345 ITR 135), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has elucidated and explained the scope of the provisions of sec. 263 of the Act and the same has been extracted by the ITA No. 1207 & 1208/Mum/2023 Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs. Goetze (India) Ltd (361 ITR 505) as under:- “Thus, in cas…

Icici Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT -2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 738/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Visanji, advFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 263Section 36(1)Section 48

…provisions of section 263 the order sought to be revised should be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It has been held by Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (243 ITR 83 (SC), CIT v Max India 295 ITR 282, CIT v Amitabh Bachhan 384 ITR 200 at 216, Para 21] that if one of the conditions ICICI Bank Ltd; A.Y. 2015-16 is absent, recourse cannot be had to section 263(1) of the Act. According to the Court the provisions of 263 cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error. 10. We further submit that all the above mentioned issues…

Harmony Yarns Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Surat

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 348/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.348/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Harmony Yarns Private Vs. The Pcit-1, Limited, Surat Plot-65, 1St Floor Subhash Nagar Society, Ghod Dod Road, Nr. Ram Chowk, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaach5895F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Airiju Jaikaran, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/10/2023 23/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

…e Ld. A.O., which is not permissible. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ranka Jewellers vs. Addl. CIT (328 ITR 148) relying on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT and CIT vs. Max India Ltd. [(2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC)], has held that once the issue was considered by the A.O., the remedy of the revenue could not lie in invoking of the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act. Therefore, the order of the Ld. C.I.T. was definitely outside the purview of section 263 of the Act. As noted above, the exercise aimed at ascertaining the correct income of the assessee has…

Sourabh Sharma, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 240/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)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 inte…

Rajkumar Goyal, Indore vs. The Pr. CIT-2, Indore

In the result, appeal of the assesse is dismissed

ITA 438/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniraj Kumar Goyal Pr. Cit-2 42, Narmda Marg Barwaha Indore Vs. Khargone (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Ackpg 1896N Assessee By Shri Ram Gilda, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.11.2023

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

…O has taken a possible view by making ad hoc disallowance then the Pr. CIT is not permitted to invoke the provisions of section 263 merely because he does not agree with the view of the AO. He has relied upon the following decisions: 1.CIT vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 2. Ranka Jewellers vs. Addl. CIT 395 ITR 148 (Bom) 3. Attar Singh Gurmukh singh vs. ITO 191 ITR 667 (SC) 4. ITO vs. Jitendra Kumar Mandlecha 23 ITJ 644 5. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. 243 ITR 83 6. CIT vs. Nirav Modi 390 ITR 292 (Bombay HC) 7. CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bombay HC) 8. Jeevanlal Ltd. vs. aCiT 208 ITR 407 5. On the othe…

DCIT Circle-1(1) Exemption, New Delhi vs. India International Centre, New Delhi

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

ITA 1872/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Dohare, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

…Further revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act cannot be initiated for inadequate enquiry and the same could be done only for lack of enquiry. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Max India Ltd reported in 295 ITR 282 (SC); Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd reported in 243 ITR 83 (SC) and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DG Housing Projects Ltd reported in 343 ITR 329 (Del); CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd reported in 332 ITR 167 (Del), among other decisions. 9. In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the judicial precedents relied upon herei…

DCIT Circle-1(1) Exemption, New Delhi vs. India International Centre, New Delhi

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

ITA 1871/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Dohare, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

…Further revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act cannot be initiated for inadequate enquiry and the same could be done only for lack of enquiry. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Max India Ltd reported in 295 ITR 282 (SC); Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd reported in 243 ITR 83 (SC) and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DG Housing Projects Ltd reported in 343 ITR 329 (Del); CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd reported in 332 ITR 167 (Del), among other decisions. 9. In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the judicial precedents relied upon herei…