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)

Vipul M Shah (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO -17(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1030/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhvipul M Shah (Huf) Vs. The Ito 17(3)(5) 404, Commerce House, Mumbai 140, N.M. Road, Fort, Maharashtra – 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aabhv3153Q Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Vimal Punamiya Respondent By : Gotimukul Santosh Kumar Date Of Hearing 20.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.10.2023

For Appellant: Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Gotimukul Santosh Kumar

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 68

…adverse remark in the order but a legally tenable view has been taken so the commissioner has no power to invoke the provision u/s 263 of the Act in view of the law settled in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC), (ii) CIT Vs. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282 (SC), CIT Vs. Gabrial India Ltd, 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (1993). At the time of argument, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has also invited our attention to the audited account for the A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 placed on record in which the transaction has duly been disclosed and accepted by the revenue authorities. Taking into account, all the P a…

The Lake Palace Hotels & Motelsprivate Limited, Udaipur vs. PCIT, Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 52/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

…22) 6 NYP CTR 1006 (Delhi) 62-64 4 Pr. CIT vs. Era Infrastructure India Ltd. (2022) 327 CTR (Del) 489 65-66 5 CIT vs. J. L. Morrison (India) Ltd. 270 CTR (Cal) 405 67-68 6 CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. 333 ITR 547 (Del) 69-71 7 CIT vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC) 72-74 5.2 The ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the written submission and case law so relied upon submitted that the issue that the PCIT is raising has already been raised by the ld. AO vide notice dated 24.11.1019 in Point no. 7 (APB-14) wherein ld. AO asked as under: 7. Submit details of exempt income and investment. Show cause wh…

Gillette India Limited, Spa-65A, Industrial Area, Bhiwadi, District- Alwar vs. PCIT, Jaipur-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 313/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. ParwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 192Section 194Section 195Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

…it was not necessary to value stock-in-trade at market price. Thus, the view taken by AO in accepting the book value of the stock-in- trade was a plausible and permissible view and therefore, the PCIT could not exercise his powers u/s 263. PCIT Vs. Max India 295 ITR 282 (SC) Where two views are possible and the ITO has taken one view with which the PCIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, unless the view taken by the ITO is unsustainable in law. When the PCIT passed the impugned order under sec. 263, two views were inherently possible on the word…

A3Logics (India) Private Limited, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur -1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 190/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40a

…the interest of the Revenue, unless the view taken 9 A3logics (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT 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…

Maharashtra Rajya Pathyapustak Mandal Karmachari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Pune

The appeal of the assessee stands ALLOWED

ITA 733/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 733/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Maharashtra Rajya Pathyapustak Mandal Karmachari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Bal Bharati, Senapati Bapat Rd., Pune – 411 004 Pan: Aaaam2009A . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -2 Pune . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : Mrs. J.R. Chandekar Revenue By : Shri Keyur Patel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 25/09/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 26/09/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Of The Assessee For Assessment Year 2017-18 [For Short ‘Ay’] Is Assailed Against Revisionary Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, [For Short ‘Pcit’] Dt. 21/03/2022 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’], Which Ascended Out Of Assessment Order Dt. 24/12/2019 Passed U/S 143(3) By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(5), Pune [For Short ‘Ao’].

For Appellant: Mrs. J.R. ChandekarFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…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‛. In the present case, we find that admittedly the interest income was earned from the cooperative banks…

St Xaviers Education Trust, Aurangabad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ( Central) Nagpur, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 689/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.680 To 684/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2017-18 St. Lawrence Education Vs. Pcit, Central, Nagpur. Trust, Gut No.42, Sunderwadi, Zalta Circle, Aurangabad- 431003. Pan : Aaats5598P Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.685 To 689/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2017-18 St. Xaviers Education Trust, Vs. Pcit, Central, Nagpur. R-7/1, Town Center, Cidco, Maharashtra- 431003 Pan : Aacts4140D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sachin P. Kumar Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Ita Nos.685 To 689/Pun/2023 Income Tax (Central), Nagpur [‘Pcit’] Dated 31.03.2022 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2017-18 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals Of Two Different Assessees, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.680/Pun/2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Sachin P. KumarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari

Section 10Section 131Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 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 ITA Nos.685 to 689/PUN/2023 examined the claim took one of the plausible views, the assessment order cannot be termed as an “erroneous”. 12. Therefore, in the light of the above legal position, we proceed to exam…

St Xaviers Education Trust, Aurangabad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Nagpur, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 688/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.680 To 684/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2017-18 St. Lawrence Education Vs. Pcit, Central, Nagpur. Trust, Gut No.42, Sunderwadi, Zalta Circle, Aurangabad- 431003. Pan : Aaats5598P Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.685 To 689/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2017-18 St. Xaviers Education Trust, Vs. Pcit, Central, Nagpur. R-7/1, Town Center, Cidco, Maharashtra- 431003 Pan : Aacts4140D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sachin P. Kumar Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Ita Nos.685 To 689/Pun/2023 Income Tax (Central), Nagpur [‘Pcit’] Dated 31.03.2022 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2017-18 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals Of Two Different Assessees, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.680/Pun/2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Sachin P. KumarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari

Section 10Section 131Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 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 ITA Nos.685 to 689/PUN/2023 examined the claim took one of the plausible views, the assessment order cannot be termed as an “erroneous”. 12. Therefore, in the light of the above legal position, we proceed to exam…

St Xaviers Education Trust, Aurangabad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ( Central ) Nagpur, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 687/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.680 To 684/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2017-18 St. Lawrence Education Vs. Pcit, Central, Nagpur. Trust, Gut No.42, Sunderwadi, Zalta Circle, Aurangabad- 431003. Pan : Aaats5598P Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.685 To 689/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2017-18 St. Xaviers Education Trust, Vs. Pcit, Central, Nagpur. R-7/1, Town Center, Cidco, Maharashtra- 431003 Pan : Aacts4140D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sachin P. Kumar Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Ita Nos.685 To 689/Pun/2023 Income Tax (Central), Nagpur [‘Pcit’] Dated 31.03.2022 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2017-18 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals Of Two Different Assessees, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.680/Pun/2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Sachin P. KumarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari

Section 10Section 131Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 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 ITA Nos.685 to 689/PUN/2023 examined the claim took one of the plausible views, the assessment order cannot be termed as an “erroneous”. 12. Therefore, in the light of the above legal position, we proceed to exam…

St Xaviers Education Trust, Aurangabad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(Central) Nagpur, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 686/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.680 To 684/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2017-18 St. Lawrence Education Vs. Pcit, Central, Nagpur. Trust, Gut No.42, Sunderwadi, Zalta Circle, Aurangabad- 431003. Pan : Aaats5598P Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.685 To 689/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2017-18 St. Xaviers Education Trust, Vs. Pcit, Central, Nagpur. R-7/1, Town Center, Cidco, Maharashtra- 431003 Pan : Aacts4140D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sachin P. Kumar Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Ita Nos.685 To 689/Pun/2023 Income Tax (Central), Nagpur [‘Pcit’] Dated 31.03.2022 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2017-18 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals Of Two Different Assessees, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.680/Pun/2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Sachin P. KumarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari

Section 10Section 131Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 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 ITA Nos.685 to 689/PUN/2023 examined the claim took one of the plausible views, the assessment order cannot be termed as an “erroneous”. 12. Therefore, in the light of the above legal position, we proceed to exam…

St Xaviers Education Trust, Aurangabad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax( Central) Nagpur, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 685/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.680 To 684/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2017-18 St. Lawrence Education Vs. Pcit, Central, Nagpur. Trust, Gut No.42, Sunderwadi, Zalta Circle, Aurangabad- 431003. Pan : Aaats5598P Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.685 To 689/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2017-18 St. Xaviers Education Trust, Vs. Pcit, Central, Nagpur. R-7/1, Town Center, Cidco, Maharashtra- 431003 Pan : Aacts4140D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sachin P. Kumar Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Ita Nos.685 To 689/Pun/2023 Income Tax (Central), Nagpur [‘Pcit’] Dated 31.03.2022 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2017-18 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals Of Two Different Assessees, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.680/Pun/2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Sachin P. KumarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari

Section 10Section 131Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 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 ITA Nos.685 to 689/PUN/2023 examined the claim took one of the plausible views, the assessment order cannot be termed as an “erroneous”. 12. Therefore, in the light of the above legal position, we proceed to exam…

St. Lawrence Education Trust, Aurangabad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central Nagpur, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 684/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.680 To 684/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2017-18 St. Lawrence Education Vs. Pcit, Central, Nagpur. Trust, Gut No.42, Sunderwadi, Zalta Circle, Aurangabad- 431003. Pan : Aaats5598P Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.685 To 689/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2017-18 St. Xaviers Education Trust, Vs. Pcit, Central, Nagpur. R-7/1, Town Center, Cidco, Maharashtra- 431003 Pan : Aacts4140D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sachin P. Kumar Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Ita Nos.685 To 689/Pun/2023 Income Tax (Central), Nagpur [‘Pcit’] Dated 31.03.2022 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2017-18 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals Of Two Different Assessees, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.680/Pun/2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Sachin P. KumarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari

Section 10Section 131Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 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 ITA Nos.685 to 689/PUN/2023 examined the claim took one of the plausible views, the assessment order cannot be termed as an “erroneous”. 12. Therefore, in the light of the above legal position, we proceed to exam…

St. Lawrence Education Trust, Aurangabad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Nagpur, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 683/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.680 To 684/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2017-18 St. Lawrence Education Vs. Pcit, Central, Nagpur. Trust, Gut No.42, Sunderwadi, Zalta Circle, Aurangabad- 431003. Pan : Aaats5598P Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.685 To 689/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2017-18 St. Xaviers Education Trust, Vs. Pcit, Central, Nagpur. R-7/1, Town Center, Cidco, Maharashtra- 431003 Pan : Aacts4140D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sachin P. Kumar Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Ita Nos.685 To 689/Pun/2023 Income Tax (Central), Nagpur [‘Pcit’] Dated 31.03.2022 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2017-18 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals Of Two Different Assessees, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.680/Pun/2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Sachin P. KumarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari

Section 10Section 131Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 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 ITA Nos.685 to 689/PUN/2023 examined the claim took one of the plausible views, the assessment order cannot be termed as an “erroneous”. 12. Therefore, in the light of the above legal position, we proceed to exam…

St. Lawrence Education Trust, Aurangabad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central Nagpur, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 682/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.680 To 684/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2017-18 St. Lawrence Education Vs. Pcit, Central, Nagpur. Trust, Gut No.42, Sunderwadi, Zalta Circle, Aurangabad- 431003. Pan : Aaats5598P Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.685 To 689/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2017-18 St. Xaviers Education Trust, Vs. Pcit, Central, Nagpur. R-7/1, Town Center, Cidco, Maharashtra- 431003 Pan : Aacts4140D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sachin P. Kumar Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Ita Nos.685 To 689/Pun/2023 Income Tax (Central), Nagpur [‘Pcit’] Dated 31.03.2022 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2017-18 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals Of Two Different Assessees, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.680/Pun/2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Sachin P. KumarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari

Section 10Section 131Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 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 ITA Nos.685 to 689/PUN/2023 examined the claim took one of the plausible views, the assessment order cannot be termed as an “erroneous”. 12. Therefore, in the light of the above legal position, we proceed to exam…

St. Lawrence Education Trust, Aurangabad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central Nagpur, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 681/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.680 To 684/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2017-18 St. Lawrence Education Vs. Pcit, Central, Nagpur. Trust, Gut No.42, Sunderwadi, Zalta Circle, Aurangabad- 431003. Pan : Aaats5598P Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.685 To 689/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2017-18 St. Xaviers Education Trust, Vs. Pcit, Central, Nagpur. R-7/1, Town Center, Cidco, Maharashtra- 431003 Pan : Aacts4140D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sachin P. Kumar Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Ita Nos.685 To 689/Pun/2023 Income Tax (Central), Nagpur [‘Pcit’] Dated 31.03.2022 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2017-18 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals Of Two Different Assessees, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.680/Pun/2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Sachin P. KumarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari

Section 10Section 131Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 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 ITA Nos.685 to 689/PUN/2023 examined the claim took one of the plausible views, the assessment order cannot be termed as an “erroneous”. 12. Therefore, in the light of the above legal position, we proceed to exam…

St. Lawrence Education Trust, Aurangabad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 680/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.680 To 684/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2017-18 St. Lawrence Education Vs. Pcit, Central, Nagpur. Trust, Gut No.42, Sunderwadi, Zalta Circle, Aurangabad- 431003. Pan : Aaats5598P Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.685 To 689/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2017-18 St. Xaviers Education Trust, Vs. Pcit, Central, Nagpur. R-7/1, Town Center, Cidco, Maharashtra- 431003 Pan : Aacts4140D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sachin P. Kumar Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Ita Nos.685 To 689/Pun/2023 Income Tax (Central), Nagpur [‘Pcit’] Dated 31.03.2022 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2017-18 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals Of Two Different Assessees, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.680/Pun/2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Sachin P. KumarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari

Section 10Section 131Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 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 ITA Nos.685 to 689/PUN/2023 examined the claim took one of the plausible views, the assessment order cannot be termed as an “erroneous”. 12. Therefore, in the light of the above legal position, we proceed to exam…

Jai International, Udaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 23/JODH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: The Date Of Hearing. 4. That The Hon’Ble Pcit Has Not Given Any Specific Instance About Rejecting The Details Submitted By Us In Response To Their Query. 5. That The Hon’Ble Pcit Has Not Given Any Specific Reason/Speaking Order Contradicting Case Laws Submitted By Us. The Hon’Ble Pcit Only Says That The Facts Are Different.”

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

…rned PCIT was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act. The finding of Learned PCIT that confirmations were not provided during assessment proceedings is factually incorrect. Reliance is placed on decisions in CIT Vs. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282 (S.C.);CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del). Further The asseesee’s case was also under complete scrutiny for AY 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 and no additions were made during those years which itself proves the genuineness of creditors. All the creditors are 12 Jai International, Udaipur regular creditors with whom assessee is carrying…

Shri Champakbhai D. Patel, Bardoli vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (It & Tp), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 15/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.15/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) M/S. Champakbhai D. Patel, Vs. The Cit(It & Tp), Mota Sardar Chowk, Bardoli, Ahmedabad Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Atlpp0997K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Shri S. M. Keshkamat, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 13/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2023

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…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…

Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd, Konnur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Gokak

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 111/PAN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji20 Sept 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay D Shirguppe, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ashwini Hosmani, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…ces in this regard can be made to the decision of 3 ITA Nos.109-111/PAN/2023 Primary Agricultural Cr. Co-op Society Ltd. 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”. In the present case, we find that admittedly the interest income was earned from the cooperative banks…

Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd, Konnur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Gokak

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 110/PAN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji20 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay D Shirguppe, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ashwini Hosmani, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…ces in this regard can be made to the decision of 3 ITA Nos.109-111/PAN/2023 Primary Agricultural Cr. Co-op Society Ltd. 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”. In the present case, we find that admittedly the interest income was earned from the cooperative banks…

Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd, Konnur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Gokak

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 109/PAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji20 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay D Shirguppe, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ashwini Hosmani, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…ces in this regard can be made to the decision of 3 ITA Nos.109-111/PAN/2023 Primary Agricultural Cr. Co-op Society Ltd. 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”. In the present case, we find that admittedly the interest income was earned from the cooperative banks…

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.

Vipul M Shah (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO -17(3)(5), Mumbai

The Lake Palace Hotels & Motelsprivate Limited, Udaipur vs. PCIT, Circle-2, Udaipur

Gillette India Limited, Spa-65A, Industrial Area, Bhiwadi, District- Alwar vs. PCIT, Jaipur-1, Jaipur

A3Logics (India) Private Limited, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur -1, Jaipur

Maharashtra Rajya Pathyapustak Mandal Karmachari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Pune

St Xaviers Education Trust, Aurangabad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ( Central) Nagpur, Nagpur

St Xaviers Education Trust, Aurangabad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Nagpur, Nagpur

St Xaviers Education Trust, Aurangabad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ( Central ) Nagpur, Nagpur

St Xaviers Education Trust, Aurangabad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(Central) Nagpur, Nagpur

St Xaviers Education Trust, Aurangabad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax( Central) Nagpur, Nagpur

St. Lawrence Education Trust, Aurangabad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central Nagpur, Nagpur

St. Lawrence Education Trust, Aurangabad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Nagpur, Nagpur

St. Lawrence Education Trust, Aurangabad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central Nagpur, Nagpur

St. Lawrence Education Trust, Aurangabad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central Nagpur, Nagpur

St. Lawrence Education Trust, Aurangabad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Nagpur

Jai International, Udaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur

Shri Champakbhai D. Patel, Bardoli vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (It & Tp), Ahmedabad

Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd, Konnur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Gokak

Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd, Konnur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Gokak

Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd, Konnur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Gokak