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)

The Bhandari Co-Op Credit Soiety Limited, Panaji vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(5), Panaji

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 102/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 Amogh Arlekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ashwini Hosmani, Sr.DR

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

…o be satisfied cumulatively. References in this regard can be made to the decision of The Bhandari Co-op Cr. 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…

The Bhandari Co-Op Credit Soiety Limited, Panaji vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(5), Panaji

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 101/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 Amogh Arlekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ashwini Hosmani, Sr.DR

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

…o be satisfied cumulatively. References in this regard can be made to the decision of The Bhandari Co-op Cr. 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…

Gayatri Devi, Jaipur vs. PCIT(Central), Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 405/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT-DR

Section 127Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ted as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, unless the view taken by the AO is totally unsustainable in law. Kindly refer Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v/s CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC). 1.2 Also kindly refer CIT v/s Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) wherein it is held that: "The phrase "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" in S. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has to be read in conjunction with the expression "erroneous" order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the inte…

Kunj Bihari Dawa Dukan, Ambikapur, Surguja vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 122/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.122/Rpr/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Kunj Bihari Dawa Dukan Pcit Opp. Govt. Distt. Hospital, Raipur - 1 Bilaspur Road Ambikapur, Surguju Chhattisgarh – 497 001

For Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…sary verification, did not make addition on account of cash deposit. 8. Issue already examined by AO. Jurisdiction u/s 263 could not be assumed. Reliance on:- i) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT- (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) ii) CIT vs Max India Limited (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) iii) CIT vs Gabrial India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) 9. Regarding issue of cash deposit, no query raised by Ld. Pr. CIT and no opportunity allowed to the assessee. Revision order is liable to be cancelled on this account. 10. Sec. 263 envisages passing of revision order "after giving assessee an opportunity of being heard. Before decid…

Apm Industries Ltd, Bhiwadi, Alwar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, Alwar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 203/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 203/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 APM Industries Ltd. SP-147, Industrial Area Bhiwadi, Alwar cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-01, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCA 5114 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. S. L. Poddar jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a l

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. PoddarFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 263Section 40Section 40A(7)

…'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 159 CTR (SC) 1: (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC). We also draw strength from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 213 CTR (SC) 266: (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) wherein it was held that: "The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue' in s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961, has to be read in conjunction with the expression 'erroneous' order passed by the AO. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the AO cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. For example, w…

Laxmi Narayan Agarwal, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2, Income Tax Department

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 296/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT) a

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

…all cases in which a receipt is sought to be taxed as income, the burden lies upon the department to prove that it is within the taxing provision.” We also rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Limited reported in 295 ITR 282 wherein it was held as under : “When the CIT passed the impugned order under s. 263, two views were inherently possible on the word "profits" occurring in the proviso to s. 80HHC(3) and therefore, subsequent amendment of s. 80HHC made in the year 2005, though retrospective, did not render the order of the AO erroneous and prejudicial to the inter…

Shankar Zethabhai Patel, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.124/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Shankar Zethabhai Patel, Vs. The Pcit(Central), 505, Sraynik Park Appartment, Rander Surat. Road, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Cfepp7235M Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) 15/06/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

…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 (supra) 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 124/SRT/2022/AY.2018-19 Shankar Zethabhai Patel 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. Based on these facts and circumstances, we…

Girnar Software Private Limited, 6Th Floor, Jaipur Textile Market, B-2, Near Model Town, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur vs. PCIT – 2, Jaipur, New Central Revenue Building

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 330/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri PC Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263

…of twin conditions, viz., (a) order of the assessing officer sought to be revised is erroneous and (b) such order is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and the said principle has been held in the following decisions as well: • CIT vs. Max India Limited: 295 ITR 282 (SC) • CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd: 203 ITR 108 (Bom) • CIT vs. Smt. Meenalben S. Parikh: 215 ITR 81 (Guj.) • CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers: 259 ITR 502 (Guj) • CIT vs. Mehsana Dist. Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd.: 263 ITR 645 (Guj.) In the instant case, the assessment proceedings were initiated for complete scrutiny and one of the reason was ‘invest…

Jai Salasar Balaji Industries(P)Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

ITA 440/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 440/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jai Salasar Balaji Industries (P) Ltd. Acit, Central Circle – 4(1), Kolkata 5, Bentinck Street Vs Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaacj6970D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, Fca Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/08/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Kolkata -2, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Dt. 28/03/2023, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Steel. E-Return Filed On 27/10/2018 Declaring Total Income At Nil For The Assessment Year 2018-19. Case Selected For Through Cass Followed By Issuance Of Notice U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act. Details Were Called For In Respect Of The Reason Of Scrutiny Selection. The Assessee Complied By Filing All The Relevant Details & The Same Were Duly Examined By The Assessing Officer & He Came To The Conclusion That The Assessee Was Entitled To The Claim Of Carry Forward Of Loss To 2

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT, D/R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SONJOY SARMA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 440/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jai Salasar Balaji Industries (P) Ltd. ACIT, Central Circle – 4(1), Kolkata 5, Bentinck Street Vs Kolkata - 700001 [PAN : AAACJ6970D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, FCA Revenue by : Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 20/06/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 25/08/2023 आदेश/O R D E R PER DR. M…

Shree Navkar Realinfra Private Limited, Bhilwara vs. PCIT, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 133/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of This Appeal.”

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

…n'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 159 CTR (SC) 1: (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC). We also draw strength from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 213 CTR (SC) 266: (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) wherein it was held that: "The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue' in s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961, has to be read in conjunction with the expression 'erroneous' order passed by the AO. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the AO cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. For example,…

Usha K Jolly Charitable Trust, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 174/PUN/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.174/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Usha K. Jolly Charitable Vs. Cit (Exemption), Pune. Trust, 23, Jolly Villa, Bund Garden Road, Pune- 411001. Pan : Aaatu1384R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.08.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [‘The Cit (Exemption)’] Dated 30.03.2021 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit (Exemptions) Erred In Law & On Facts In Invoking The Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The It Act, 1961, Since Issues

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 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 examined the claim took one of the plausible views, the assessment order cannot be termed as an “erroneous”. 8. Now, we proceed to examine the facts of the present case whether the order of reassessment dated 28.…

India International Centre, Central Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2940/DEL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2018-19 India International Centre, Vs Cit(E), 40, Max Mueller Marg, New Delhi. Lodhi Estate, New Delhi – 110 003. Pan: Aaati0660C

For Appellant: Shri Krishna Mohan Prasad, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT,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 her…

Career Point Limited, Kota, Rajasthan vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur, Rajasthan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 242/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT)

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

…ard, we draw strength from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v/s CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC). We also draw strength from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v/s Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) wherein it was 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 AO. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the AO cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. For ex…

Pimpiri Chinchwad Mahanagar Palikas Sevakanchi Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 604/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.Pimpri Chinchwad Mahanagar Vs Pr.Cit, Pune. Palika‟S Sevakanchi Patsanstha Maryadit, Shop No.101, Shubham Galleria, Pimpri, Pune. Pan: Aaatp 5109 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rohit C. Kasat, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari, Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2023 O R D E R Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanate From The Order Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune (For Short, „Pcit‟), Dated 23/03/2022 For A.Y. 2017-18 As Per The Grounds Of Appeal On Record.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit C. Kasat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari, DR

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

…ences in this regard can be made to the decision of 3 Pimpri Chinchwad Mahanagar Palika‟s Sevakanchi Patsanstha Maryadit. 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…

M/S Sunil Chetndas Katariya, HUF, Nashik vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-1, Nashik

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

ITA 261/PUN/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.261/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Sunil Chetandas Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Nashik. Katariya, 649, Sai Villa, Lam Road, Deolali Camp, Nashik- 422401. Pan : Aaths6634R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Nashik [‘Pcit’] Dated 12.03.2021 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Pcit Erred In Holding That The Asst. Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 In The Case Of The Assessee For A.Y.2011 - 12 Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & Thereby

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 269S

…bove two conditions are required to be satisfied cumulatively. References in this regard can be made 7 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 the facts of the present case whether the order of reassessment dated 24.…

Shree Adinath Minority Credit Souhard Sahakari Ltd, Belgaum vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3), Belagavi

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 42/PAN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Prathamik Krushi Pattin Vs Ito, Ward-1, Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Nipani Ingali, Tal - Chikodi, Dist. Belgaum, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaap 1335 L Appellant Respondent Directorate Of Health Services Vs Ito, Ward-1(4), Employees Co-Op. Credit Panaji-Goa. Society Ltd., Campal, Panji. Pan: Aaaad 8637 P Appellant Respondent Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Vs Ito, Ward-2, Sangha Ltd., Kadatoka, Karwar. Honnavar, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaav 0321 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 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…

Ramanaguli Group Seva Sahakari Sangha Limited, Ankola vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Karwar

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 40/PAN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Prathamik Krushi Pattin Vs Ito, Ward-1, Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Nipani Ingali, Tal - Chikodi, Dist. Belgaum, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaap 1335 L Appellant Respondent Directorate Of Health Services Vs Ito, Ward-1(4), Employees Co-Op. Credit Panaji-Goa. Society Ltd., Campal, Panji. Pan: Aaaad 8637 P Appellant Respondent Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Vs Ito, Ward-2, Sangha Ltd., Kadatoka, Karwar. Honnavar, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaav 0321 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 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…

Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Sangha Limited, Kadatoka vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Karwar

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 117/PAN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Prathamik Krushi Pattin Vs Ito, Ward-1, Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Nipani Ingali, Tal - Chikodi, Dist. Belgaum, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaap 1335 L Appellant Respondent Directorate Of Health Services Vs Ito, Ward-1(4), Employees Co-Op. Credit Panaji-Goa. Society Ltd., Campal, Panji. Pan: Aaaad 8637 P Appellant Respondent Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Vs Ito, Ward-2, Sangha Ltd., Kadatoka, Karwar. Honnavar, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaav 0321 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 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…

Directorate of Health Services Employees Co-Operative Society Ltd, Panaji vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Panaji

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 115/PAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Prathamik Krushi Pattin Vs Ito, Ward-1, Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Nipani Ingali, Tal - Chikodi, Dist. Belgaum, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaap 1335 L Appellant Respondent Directorate Of Health Services Vs Ito, Ward-1(4), Employees Co-Op. Credit Panaji-Goa. Society Ltd., Campal, Panji. Pan: Aaaad 8637 P Appellant Respondent Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Vs Ito, Ward-2, Sangha Ltd., Kadatoka, Karwar. Honnavar, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaav 0321 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 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…

Prathamik Krushi Pattin Sahakari Sangh Nyt, Ingali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Nipani

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 113/PAN/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Prathamik Krushi Pattin Vs Ito, Ward-1, Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Nipani Ingali, Tal - Chikodi, Dist. Belgaum, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaap 1335 L Appellant Respondent Directorate Of Health Services Vs Ito, Ward-1(4), Employees Co-Op. Credit Panaji-Goa. Society Ltd., Campal, Panji. Pan: Aaaad 8637 P Appellant Respondent Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Vs Ito, Ward-2, Sangha Ltd., Kadatoka, Karwar. Honnavar, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaav 0321 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 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…

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.

The Bhandari Co-Op Credit Soiety Limited, Panaji vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(5), Panaji

The Bhandari Co-Op Credit Soiety Limited, Panaji vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(5), Panaji

Gayatri Devi, Jaipur vs. PCIT(Central), Jaipur

Kunj Bihari Dawa Dukan, Ambikapur, Surguja vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

Apm Industries Ltd, Bhiwadi, Alwar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, Alwar

Laxmi Narayan Agarwal, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2, Income Tax Department

Shankar Zethabhai Patel, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central, Surat

Girnar Software Private Limited, 6Th Floor, Jaipur Textile Market, B-2, Near Model Town, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur vs. PCIT – 2, Jaipur, New Central Revenue Building

Jai Salasar Balaji Industries(P)Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

Shree Navkar Realinfra Private Limited, Bhilwara vs. PCIT, Udaipur

Usha K Jolly Charitable Trust, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Exemption), Pune

India International Centre, Central Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), New Delhi

Career Point Limited, Kota, Rajasthan vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur, Rajasthan

Pimpiri Chinchwad Mahanagar Palikas Sevakanchi Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

M/S Sunil Chetndas Katariya, HUF, Nashik vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-1, Nashik

Shree Adinath Minority Credit Souhard Sahakari Ltd, Belgaum vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3), Belagavi

Ramanaguli Group Seva Sahakari Sangha Limited, Ankola vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Karwar

Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Sangha Limited, Kadatoka vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Karwar

Directorate of Health Services Employees Co-Operative Society Ltd, Panaji vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Panaji

Prathamik Krushi Pattin Sahakari Sangh Nyt, Ingali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Nipani