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)

Shree Laxmi Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax -41, Mumbai

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

ITA 1265/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “G” Bench, Mumbai. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (JM) I.T.A. No. 1265/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2018-19) Vs. PCIT-41 Shree Laxmi Enterprises 1107, ATL Corporate Park 541, Kautilya Bhavan Saki Vihar Road, Powai C-41 to C-43, G Block Mumbai-400 072. Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra East PAN : AAZFS1341M Mumbai- 400 051. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Dr. K. Shivaram & Shri Shashi Bekal Department by Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan Date of Hearing 19.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement 08.08.2023 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (AM) :- The assessee has filed this app…

Fdc Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Cir-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 1031/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(i)Section 37(1)Section 80G

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “F” Bench, Mumbai. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (JM) I.T.A. No. 1031/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2018-19) Vs. PCIT, Circle-1 FDC Limited 142-148, Ghaswala Estate Room No. 330 S.V. Road, Jogeshwari 3rd Floor West, Mumbai-400 102. Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road PAN : AAACF0253H Mumbai-400 020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Dr. K. Shivram, Shri Rahul Hakani & Shri Jay Bansali Department by Shri Ankush Kapoor Date of Hearing 21.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement 02.08.2023 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (AM) :- The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the…

Allied Photographics India Ltd., Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 1083/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanm/S Alliedphotographics Vs. Pr.Cit-1, India Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Room No.330, Kasturi Buildings, 3Rd Floor, Jamshedji Tata Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, M.K. Road, Mumbai -400020. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. : Aabca2068A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nitish Gandhi.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Smiti Samant. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-1, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Mr.Nitish Gandhi.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Smiti Samant. DR

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263

…aken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law.” The principle which has been laid down in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) has been followed and explained in a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282.” 12. 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 Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs. Goetze (India) Ltd (361 ITR 505) as under:- “Thus, in cases of wrong opinion or findi…

Au Small Finance Bank Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-1

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 203/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT

Section 115JSection 263Section 35ASection 36(1)(viia)

…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 M/s. AU Small Finance Bank Limited & Avas Financiers Limited 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, wh…

Rits Jewellers Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT, Faridabad

The Appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1886/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Initiating The Proceeding As No Enquiry Was Made By Pr. Cit In Arriving At Conclusion Which Is Contrary In View Of The Jurisdictional & Other High Courts & The Apex Court. D. That Once The Sums Have Been Received Through Banking Channels & Complete Evidences Was Provided During The Course Of The Assessment, Suspicion Raised Purely On Assumptions Is Wholly Unsustainable In Law.

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

…inquiries and after verifying the documents/ material on record passed a reasoned Assessment Order. Therefore, the Commissioner does not have any locus standi to make further inquiry. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd 295 ITR 282, Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 are aptly applicable in the present case as the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein it is held that Section 263 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…

Shrikanta Bajaj, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT(Central) - 3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 553/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Vikram Bajaj, Vs Pr. Cit (Central)-3, Rnp House, New Delhi. 1 Shivaji Enclave, Main Road, Near Raja Garden, New Delhi – 110 027. Pan: Acxpb6203D Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shrikanta Bajaj, Vs. Pr. Cit (Central)-3, Rnp House, New Delhi. 1 Shivaji Enclave, Main Road, Near Raja Garden, New Delhi – 110 027. Pan: Ahlpr0130J (Appellants) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Advocate & Shri Shivam Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Prakash Nath Barnwal, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.07.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: These Appeals In Ita No.552/Del/2021 & 553/Del/2021 For Ay 2016-17 Arise Out Of The Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Delhi-

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Prakash Nath Barnwal, CIT-DR

Section 153ASection 263

…merely because the ld. PCIT has got a different view on the issue. The law is very well settled on this aspect by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd., reported in 243 ITR 83 and Max India Ltd., reported in 295 ITR 282. Hence, we have no hesitation in quashing the revision order passed u/s 263 of the Act for invalid assumption of jurisdiction thereon. ITAs No.552 & 553/Del/2021 8. Further, even otherwise, the very same issue has already been considered and decided by the ld.CIT(A) on 24.03.2023 in the case of Vikram Bajaj and on 23.03.2023 in the case of Smt.…

Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1170/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…ITA Nos.1164 to 1170/Bang/2022 Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1164 to 1170/Bang/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012- 13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively Sri Muniraju Kempanna No.2231/1, ‘D’ Block ACIT Shahakaranagar Near Water Tank Central Circle-2(4) Vs. Bangalore 560 092 Bangalore PAN NO : AOOPK9420Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, A.R. Respondent by : Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R. Date of Hearing : 29.05.…

Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1168/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…ITA Nos.1164 to 1170/Bang/2022 Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1164 to 1170/Bang/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012- 13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively Sri Muniraju Kempanna No.2231/1, ‘D’ Block ACIT Shahakaranagar Near Water Tank Central Circle-2(4) Vs. Bangalore 560 092 Bangalore PAN NO : AOOPK9420Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, A.R. Respondent by : Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R. Date of Hearing : 29.05.…

Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1167/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…ITA Nos.1164 to 1170/Bang/2022 Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1164 to 1170/Bang/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012- 13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively Sri Muniraju Kempanna No.2231/1, ‘D’ Block ACIT Shahakaranagar Near Water Tank Central Circle-2(4) Vs. Bangalore 560 092 Bangalore PAN NO : AOOPK9420Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, A.R. Respondent by : Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R. Date of Hearing : 29.05.…

Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1166/BANG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…ITA Nos.1164 to 1170/Bang/2022 Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1164 to 1170/Bang/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012- 13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively Sri Muniraju Kempanna No.2231/1, ‘D’ Block ACIT Shahakaranagar Near Water Tank Central Circle-2(4) Vs. Bangalore 560 092 Bangalore PAN NO : AOOPK9420Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, A.R. Respondent by : Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R. Date of Hearing : 29.05.…

Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1165/BANG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…ITA Nos.1164 to 1170/Bang/2022 Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1164 to 1170/Bang/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012- 13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively Sri Muniraju Kempanna No.2231/1, ‘D’ Block ACIT Shahakaranagar Near Water Tank Central Circle-2(4) Vs. Bangalore 560 092 Bangalore PAN NO : AOOPK9420Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, A.R. Respondent by : Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R. Date of Hearing : 29.05.…

Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1164/BANG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…ITA Nos.1164 to 1170/Bang/2022 Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1164 to 1170/Bang/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012- 13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively Sri Muniraju Kempanna No.2231/1, ‘D’ Block ACIT Shahakaranagar Near Water Tank Central Circle-2(4) Vs. Bangalore 560 092 Bangalore PAN NO : AOOPK9420Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, A.R. Respondent by : Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R. Date of Hearing : 29.05.…

Pratap Technocrats Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 225/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80J

…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,…

Dinesh Kumar Chaurasia, Tonk vs. PCIT Central, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 102/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

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

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

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 5

…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). 10 Dinesh Kumar Chaurasia vs. PCIT 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…

Shri Vitthal Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Sevkanchi Sahakari Patsantha, Solapur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune-4, Pune

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

ITA 598/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. Shingte (Sl. No.1)

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

…e interests of revenue. In order to 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 existence of fact of debate on the issue of exemption of interest inc…

Tade Powertech Private Limited, Sangli vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Pune

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

ITA 379/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.379/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Tade Powertech Private Vs. Pcit-1, Pune. Limited, J-91, Midc, Kupwad Block, Kupwad, Sangli- 416436. Pan : Aabcp1363K Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Amol R. Kulkarni : Revenue By : Shri Prakash Mane Date Of Hearing : 21.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.07.2023 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, Pune [‘Pcit’] Dated 15.03.2023 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Electrical Equipments & Rmu Panels. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Was Filed On 26.10.2018 Declaring Total

For Respondent: Shri Prakash Mane

Section 143(3)Section 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”. 7. Now, we proceed to examine whether the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous…

The Parshwanath Co-Op. Credit Society Limited, Belgaum vs. Pr. CIT, Hubbali

ITA 80/PAN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji05 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) The Parshwanath Co-Op. Vs Pr.Cit, Hubballi. Credit Society Ltd., 535, 536, 1St Floor, Padmavati Chambers, Kulkarni Galli, Belgaum. Pan: Aaaat 4145 L Appellant Respondent Candolim Urban Co-Op. Credit Vs Ito, Ward-2(1), Society Ltd., St.Joseph Panaji, Goa. Apartment, Near Football Ground, Candolim, Bardez. Pan: Aabac 2053 P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Vaidhya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ, DR

Section 251Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)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…

The Shiroda Progressive Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Phonda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -2(3), Panaji

ITA 295/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji05 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) The Parshwanath Co-Op. Vs Pr.Cit, Hubballi. Credit Society Ltd., 535, 536, 1St Floor, Padmavati Chambers, Kulkarni Galli, Belgaum. Pan: Aaaat 4145 L Appellant Respondent Candolim Urban Co-Op. Credit Vs Ito, Ward-2(1), Society Ltd., St.Joseph Panaji, Goa. Apartment, Near Football Ground, Candolim, Bardez. Pan: Aabac 2053 P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Vaidhya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ, DR

Section 251Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)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…

The Bardez Bazar Consumers Co-Operative Society Limited, Mapusa vs. ACIT, Circle - 2(1), Panaji

ITA 268/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji05 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) The Parshwanath Co-Op. Vs Pr.Cit, Hubballi. Credit Society Ltd., 535, 536, 1St Floor, Padmavati Chambers, Kulkarni Galli, Belgaum. Pan: Aaaat 4145 L Appellant Respondent Candolim Urban Co-Op. Credit Vs Ito, Ward-2(1), Society Ltd., St.Joseph Panaji, Goa. Apartment, Near Football Ground, Candolim, Bardez. Pan: Aabac 2053 P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Vaidhya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ, DR

Section 251Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)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…

The Bardez Bazar Consumers Co-Operative Society Limited, Mapusa vs. ACIT, Circle - 2(1), Panaji

ITA 267/PAN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji05 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) The Parshwanath Co-Op. Vs Pr.Cit, Hubballi. Credit Society Ltd., 535, 536, 1St Floor, Padmavati Chambers, Kulkarni Galli, Belgaum. Pan: Aaaat 4145 L Appellant Respondent Candolim Urban Co-Op. Credit Vs Ito, Ward-2(1), Society Ltd., St.Joseph Panaji, Goa. Apartment, Near Football Ground, Candolim, Bardez. Pan: Aabac 2053 P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Vaidhya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ, DR

Section 251Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)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.

Shree Laxmi Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax -41, Mumbai

Fdc Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Cir-1, Mumbai

Allied Photographics India Ltd., Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-1, Mumbai

Au Small Finance Bank Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-1

Rits Jewellers Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT, Faridabad

Shrikanta Bajaj, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT(Central) - 3, New Delhi

Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

Pratap Technocrats Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jaipur

Dinesh Kumar Chaurasia, Tonk vs. PCIT Central, Jaipur

Shri Vitthal Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Sevkanchi Sahakari Patsantha, Solapur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune-4, Pune

Tade Powertech Private Limited, Sangli vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Pune

The Parshwanath Co-Op. Credit Society Limited, Belgaum vs. Pr. CIT, Hubbali

The Shiroda Progressive Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Phonda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -2(3), Panaji

The Bardez Bazar Consumers Co-Operative Society Limited, Mapusa vs. ACIT, Circle - 2(1), Panaji

The Bardez Bazar Consumers Co-Operative Society Limited, Mapusa vs. ACIT, Circle - 2(1), Panaji