CIT v. Max India Ltd.

295 ITR 282Supreme Court of India2007#37 most cited

What is CIT v. Max India Ltd. authority for?

Under Section 263, an assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue merely because the Principal Commissioner disagrees with the Assessing Officer's (AO) view, particularly if the AO has adopted one of two permissible views in law, unless that view is completely unsustainable. If due inquiries were made, the AO's order does not become erroneous solely because the fact of inquiries was not recorded.

1,162

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Max India Ltd. · Section 263 Income Tax Act · revision under Section 263 · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · two views possible · Assessing Officer view · Malabar Industrial · inadequate enquiry · non-application of mind · principal commissioner of income-tax

Also reported as

166 Taxmann 188213 CTR 266166 Taxmann.com 188

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 1961

Issues it is cited on

malabar industrialinadequate enquiryrevision u/s 263assessment order erroneouslack of enquiryrevision under section 263section 263(1)erroneous and prejudicialsection 263section 26principal commissioner of income-taxnon-application of mind

Judgments citing CIT v. Max India Ltd.

M/S the Quepem Urban Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Quepem vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Margao

ITA 248/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…

The Candolim Urban Co - Operative Credit Society Limited, Candolim, Goa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Panaji

ITA 204/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 Marcela Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Marcela, Goa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -2(3), Panaji

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and the Revenues are dismissed

ITA 69/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) Shri Lokakalyan Souhard Vs Pr.Cit, Belagavi. Sahakari Niyamit, Jatrat, Tal- Chikodi, Dist. Belagavi. Pan: Aaajs 2263 H Appellant Respondent Shree Kalika Urban Co-Op Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Credit Society Ltd., Shop Panaji. No.3, Rituraj Plaza, Keni Wada, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa. Pan: Aacas 1697 Q Appellant Respondent Goa Bagayatdar Sahakari Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Kharedi Vikri Saunstha Panaji. Maryadit, Bagayatdar Bhavan, Ponda, Upper Bazar, Goa. Pan: Aaaag 2147 B Appellant Respondent The Marcela Urban Co-Op Vs Ito, Ward-2(3), Credit Society Ltd., Janavikas Panaji. Building, Near Kadamba Bus Stand, Marcela, North Goa, Goa. Pan: Aadat 5762 G Appellant Respondent

Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)

…umulatively. References in this regard can be made to the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Shree Kalika Urban Co-op Credit Society Ltd. & Ors. 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 Goa Bagayatdar Sahakari Kharedi Vikri Saunstha Maryadit, Ponda vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2 (1), Panaji.

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and the Revenues are dismissed

ITA 64/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) Shri Lokakalyan Souhard Vs Pr.Cit, Belagavi. Sahakari Niyamit, Jatrat, Tal- Chikodi, Dist. Belagavi. Pan: Aaajs 2263 H Appellant Respondent Shree Kalika Urban Co-Op Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Credit Society Ltd., Shop Panaji. No.3, Rituraj Plaza, Keni Wada, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa. Pan: Aacas 1697 Q Appellant Respondent Goa Bagayatdar Sahakari Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Kharedi Vikri Saunstha Panaji. Maryadit, Bagayatdar Bhavan, Ponda, Upper Bazar, Goa. Pan: Aaaag 2147 B Appellant Respondent The Marcela Urban Co-Op Vs Ito, Ward-2(3), Credit Society Ltd., Janavikas Panaji. Building, Near Kadamba Bus Stand, Marcela, North Goa, Goa. Pan: Aadat 5762 G Appellant Respondent

Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)

…umulatively. References in this regard can be made to the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Shree Kalika Urban Co-op Credit Society Ltd. & Ors. 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…

Shree Kalika Urban Co-Op. Credit Society Limited, Mapusa vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2 (1), Panaji.

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and the Revenues are dismissed

ITA 41/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) Shri Lokakalyan Souhard Vs Pr.Cit, Belagavi. Sahakari Niyamit, Jatrat, Tal- Chikodi, Dist. Belagavi. Pan: Aaajs 2263 H Appellant Respondent Shree Kalika Urban Co-Op Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Credit Society Ltd., Shop Panaji. No.3, Rituraj Plaza, Keni Wada, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa. Pan: Aacas 1697 Q Appellant Respondent Goa Bagayatdar Sahakari Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Kharedi Vikri Saunstha Panaji. Maryadit, Bagayatdar Bhavan, Ponda, Upper Bazar, Goa. Pan: Aaaag 2147 B Appellant Respondent The Marcela Urban Co-Op Vs Ito, Ward-2(3), Credit Society Ltd., Janavikas Panaji. Building, Near Kadamba Bus Stand, Marcela, North Goa, Goa. Pan: Aadat 5762 G Appellant Respondent

Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)

…umulatively. References in this regard can be made to the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Shree Kalika Urban Co-op Credit Society Ltd. & Ors. 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…

Shri Lokakalyan Souhard Sahakari Niyamit, Belgavi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Belgavi

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and the Revenues are dismissed

ITA 33/PAN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) Shri Lokakalyan Souhard Vs Pr.Cit, Belagavi. Sahakari Niyamit, Jatrat, Tal- Chikodi, Dist. Belagavi. Pan: Aaajs 2263 H Appellant Respondent Shree Kalika Urban Co-Op Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Credit Society Ltd., Shop Panaji. No.3, Rituraj Plaza, Keni Wada, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa. Pan: Aacas 1697 Q Appellant Respondent Goa Bagayatdar Sahakari Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Kharedi Vikri Saunstha Panaji. Maryadit, Bagayatdar Bhavan, Ponda, Upper Bazar, Goa. Pan: Aaaag 2147 B Appellant Respondent The Marcela Urban Co-Op Vs Ito, Ward-2(3), Credit Society Ltd., Janavikas Panaji. Building, Near Kadamba Bus Stand, Marcela, North Goa, Goa. Pan: Aadat 5762 G Appellant Respondent

Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)

…umulatively. References in this regard can be made to the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Shree Kalika Urban Co-op Credit Society Ltd. & Ors. 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…

Safe Starsouharda Sahakari Niyamit, Honnavar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Karwar

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and the Revenues are dismissed

ITA 166/PAN/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) Shri Lokakalyan Souhard Vs Pr.Cit, Belagavi. Sahakari Niyamit, Jatrat, Tal- Chikodi, Dist. Belagavi. Pan: Aaajs 2263 H Appellant Respondent Shree Kalika Urban Co-Op Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Credit Society Ltd., Shop Panaji. No.3, Rituraj Plaza, Keni Wada, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa. Pan: Aacas 1697 Q Appellant Respondent Goa Bagayatdar Sahakari Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Kharedi Vikri Saunstha Panaji. Maryadit, Bagayatdar Bhavan, Ponda, Upper Bazar, Goa. Pan: Aaaag 2147 B Appellant Respondent The Marcela Urban Co-Op Vs Ito, Ward-2(3), Credit Society Ltd., Janavikas Panaji. Building, Near Kadamba Bus Stand, Marcela, North Goa, Goa. Pan: Aadat 5762 G Appellant Respondent

Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)

…umulatively. References in this regard can be made to the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Shree Kalika Urban Co-op Credit Society Ltd. & Ors. 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…

Safe Starsouharda Sahakari Niyamit, Honnavar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Karwar

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and the Revenues are dismissed

ITA 165/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) Shri Lokakalyan Souhard Vs Pr.Cit, Belagavi. Sahakari Niyamit, Jatrat, Tal- Chikodi, Dist. Belagavi. Pan: Aaajs 2263 H Appellant Respondent Shree Kalika Urban Co-Op Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Credit Society Ltd., Shop Panaji. No.3, Rituraj Plaza, Keni Wada, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa. Pan: Aacas 1697 Q Appellant Respondent Goa Bagayatdar Sahakari Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Kharedi Vikri Saunstha Panaji. Maryadit, Bagayatdar Bhavan, Ponda, Upper Bazar, Goa. Pan: Aaaag 2147 B Appellant Respondent The Marcela Urban Co-Op Vs Ito, Ward-2(3), Credit Society Ltd., Janavikas Panaji. Building, Near Kadamba Bus Stand, Marcela, North Goa, Goa. Pan: Aadat 5762 G Appellant Respondent

Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)

…umulatively. References in this regard can be made to the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Shree Kalika Urban Co-op Credit Society Ltd. & Ors. 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 Old Goa Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Goa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3), Panaji

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and the Revenues are dismissed

ITA 157/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) Shri Lokakalyan Souhard Vs Pr.Cit, Belagavi. Sahakari Niyamit, Jatrat, Tal- Chikodi, Dist. Belagavi. Pan: Aaajs 2263 H Appellant Respondent Shree Kalika Urban Co-Op Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Credit Society Ltd., Shop Panaji. No.3, Rituraj Plaza, Keni Wada, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa. Pan: Aacas 1697 Q Appellant Respondent Goa Bagayatdar Sahakari Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Kharedi Vikri Saunstha Panaji. Maryadit, Bagayatdar Bhavan, Ponda, Upper Bazar, Goa. Pan: Aaaag 2147 B Appellant Respondent The Marcela Urban Co-Op Vs Ito, Ward-2(3), Credit Society Ltd., Janavikas Panaji. Building, Near Kadamba Bus Stand, Marcela, North Goa, Goa. Pan: Aadat 5762 G Appellant Respondent

Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)

…umulatively. References in this regard can be made to the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Shree Kalika Urban Co-op Credit Society Ltd. & Ors. 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 Old Goa Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Goa vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Panaji

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and the Revenues are dismissed

ITA 156/PAN/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) Shri Lokakalyan Souhard Vs Pr.Cit, Belagavi. Sahakari Niyamit, Jatrat, Tal- Chikodi, Dist. Belagavi. Pan: Aaajs 2263 H Appellant Respondent Shree Kalika Urban Co-Op Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Credit Society Ltd., Shop Panaji. No.3, Rituraj Plaza, Keni Wada, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa. Pan: Aacas 1697 Q Appellant Respondent Goa Bagayatdar Sahakari Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Kharedi Vikri Saunstha Panaji. Maryadit, Bagayatdar Bhavan, Ponda, Upper Bazar, Goa. Pan: Aaaag 2147 B Appellant Respondent The Marcela Urban Co-Op Vs Ito, Ward-2(3), Credit Society Ltd., Janavikas Panaji. Building, Near Kadamba Bus Stand, Marcela, North Goa, Goa. Pan: Aadat 5762 G Appellant Respondent

Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)

…umulatively. References in this regard can be made to the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Shree Kalika Urban Co-op Credit Society Ltd. & Ors. 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 Pirna Urban Co-Op. Credit Society Limited, Pirna, Goa vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Panaji

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and the Revenues are dismissed

ITA 153/PAN/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) Shri Lokakalyan Souhard Vs Pr.Cit, Belagavi. Sahakari Niyamit, Jatrat, Tal- Chikodi, Dist. Belagavi. Pan: Aaajs 2263 H Appellant Respondent Shree Kalika Urban Co-Op Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Credit Society Ltd., Shop Panaji. No.3, Rituraj Plaza, Keni Wada, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa. Pan: Aacas 1697 Q Appellant Respondent Goa Bagayatdar Sahakari Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Kharedi Vikri Saunstha Panaji. Maryadit, Bagayatdar Bhavan, Ponda, Upper Bazar, Goa. Pan: Aaaag 2147 B Appellant Respondent The Marcela Urban Co-Op Vs Ito, Ward-2(3), Credit Society Ltd., Janavikas Panaji. Building, Near Kadamba Bus Stand, Marcela, North Goa, Goa. Pan: Aadat 5762 G Appellant Respondent

Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)

…umulatively. References in this regard can be made to the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Shree Kalika Urban Co-op Credit Society Ltd. & Ors. 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 Pirna Urban Co-Op. Credit Society Limited, Pirna, Goa vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Panaji

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and the Revenues are dismissed

ITA 152/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) Shri Lokakalyan Souhard Vs Pr.Cit, Belagavi. Sahakari Niyamit, Jatrat, Tal- Chikodi, Dist. Belagavi. Pan: Aaajs 2263 H Appellant Respondent Shree Kalika Urban Co-Op Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Credit Society Ltd., Shop Panaji. No.3, Rituraj Plaza, Keni Wada, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa. Pan: Aacas 1697 Q Appellant Respondent Goa Bagayatdar Sahakari Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Kharedi Vikri Saunstha Panaji. Maryadit, Bagayatdar Bhavan, Ponda, Upper Bazar, Goa. Pan: Aaaag 2147 B Appellant Respondent The Marcela Urban Co-Op Vs Ito, Ward-2(3), Credit Society Ltd., Janavikas Panaji. Building, Near Kadamba Bus Stand, Marcela, North Goa, Goa. Pan: Aadat 5762 G Appellant Respondent

Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)

…umulatively. References in this regard can be made to the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Shree Kalika Urban Co-op Credit Society Ltd. & Ors. 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…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2 (1), Panaji. vs. M/S Shree Kalika Urban Co-Op. Credit Society Limited, Mapusa

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and the Revenues are dismissed

ITA 147/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) Shri Lokakalyan Souhard Vs Pr.Cit, Belagavi. Sahakari Niyamit, Jatrat, Tal- Chikodi, Dist. Belagavi. Pan: Aaajs 2263 H Appellant Respondent Shree Kalika Urban Co-Op Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Credit Society Ltd., Shop Panaji. No.3, Rituraj Plaza, Keni Wada, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa. Pan: Aacas 1697 Q Appellant Respondent Goa Bagayatdar Sahakari Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Kharedi Vikri Saunstha Panaji. Maryadit, Bagayatdar Bhavan, Ponda, Upper Bazar, Goa. Pan: Aaaag 2147 B Appellant Respondent The Marcela Urban Co-Op Vs Ito, Ward-2(3), Credit Society Ltd., Janavikas Panaji. Building, Near Kadamba Bus Stand, Marcela, North Goa, Goa. Pan: Aadat 5762 G Appellant Respondent

Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)

…umulatively. References in this regard can be made to the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Shree Kalika Urban Co-op Credit Society Ltd. & Ors. 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 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2 (1), Panaji. vs. M/S Goa Bagayatdar Sahakari Kharedi Vikri Saunstha Maryadit, Ponda

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and the Revenues are dismissed

ITA 146/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) Shri Lokakalyan Souhard Vs Pr.Cit, Belagavi. Sahakari Niyamit, Jatrat, Tal- Chikodi, Dist. Belagavi. Pan: Aaajs 2263 H Appellant Respondent Shree Kalika Urban Co-Op Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Credit Society Ltd., Shop Panaji. No.3, Rituraj Plaza, Keni Wada, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa. Pan: Aacas 1697 Q Appellant Respondent Goa Bagayatdar Sahakari Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Kharedi Vikri Saunstha Panaji. Maryadit, Bagayatdar Bhavan, Ponda, Upper Bazar, Goa. Pan: Aaaag 2147 B Appellant Respondent The Marcela Urban Co-Op Vs Ito, Ward-2(3), Credit Society Ltd., Janavikas Panaji. Building, Near Kadamba Bus Stand, Marcela, North Goa, Goa. Pan: Aadat 5762 G Appellant Respondent

Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)

…umulatively. References in this regard can be made to the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Shree Kalika Urban Co-op Credit Society Ltd. & Ors. 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…

Kolhapur District Central Co- Op Bank Kanista Sevakanchi Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-2(1), Kolhapur

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 695/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.The Mahatma Sahakari Griha Vs Pr.Cit-2, Pune. Rachana Sanstha Maryadit, S.No.62 & 65, Sahakar Bhavan, Kothrud, Pune. Pan: Aabtt 5342 F Appellant Respondent Bajaj Auto Employees Co-Op Vs Ito, Ward-8, Credit Society Ltd., Bombay Pune. Pune Road, Bajaj Auto Ltd., Plot No.393/394, Sector 21, Akurdi, Pune. Pan: Aaajb 0024 D Appellant Respondent Shri Bhagwant Multistate Vs Pr.Cit-4, Pune. Credit Co-Op. Society Ltd., 739/7/17, Patil Plot, Shivaji Nagar Barshi, Solapur. Pan: Aamas 3645 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kiran B. Sanmane, CAFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-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…

Shri Bhagwant Multistate Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd, Solapur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Pune

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 669/PUN/2023[2018-19`]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jul 2023

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.The Mahatma Sahakari Griha Vs Pr.Cit-2, Pune. Rachana Sanstha Maryadit, S.No.62 & 65, Sahakar Bhavan, Kothrud, Pune. Pan: Aabtt 5342 F Appellant Respondent Bajaj Auto Employees Co-Op Vs Ito, Ward-8, Credit Society Ltd., Bombay Pune. Pune Road, Bajaj Auto Ltd., Plot No.393/394, Sector 21, Akurdi, Pune. Pan: Aaajb 0024 D Appellant Respondent Shri Bhagwant Multistate Vs Pr.Cit-4, Pune. Credit Co-Op. Society Ltd., 739/7/17, Patil Plot, Shivaji Nagar Barshi, Solapur. Pan: Aamas 3645 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kiran B. Sanmane, CAFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-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…

Bajaj Auto Employees Co Op Credit Society Ltd, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle-8, Pune

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 667/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.The Mahatma Sahakari Griha Vs Pr.Cit-2, Pune. Rachana Sanstha Maryadit, S.No.62 & 65, Sahakar Bhavan, Kothrud, Pune. Pan: Aabtt 5342 F Appellant Respondent Bajaj Auto Employees Co-Op Vs Ito, Ward-8, Credit Society Ltd., Bombay Pune. Pune Road, Bajaj Auto Ltd., Plot No.393/394, Sector 21, Akurdi, Pune. Pan: Aaajb 0024 D Appellant Respondent Shri Bhagwant Multistate Vs Pr.Cit-4, Pune. Credit Co-Op. Society Ltd., 739/7/17, Patil Plot, Shivaji Nagar Barshi, Solapur. Pan: Aamas 3645 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kiran B. Sanmane, CAFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-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…

The Mahatma Sahakari Griha Rachana Sanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Pune

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 650/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.The Mahatma Sahakari Griha Vs Pr.Cit-2, Pune. Rachana Sanstha Maryadit, S.No.62 & 65, Sahakar Bhavan, Kothrud, Pune. Pan: Aabtt 5342 F Appellant Respondent Bajaj Auto Employees Co-Op Vs Ito, Ward-8, Credit Society Ltd., Bombay Pune. Pune Road, Bajaj Auto Ltd., Plot No.393/394, Sector 21, Akurdi, Pune. Pan: Aaajb 0024 D Appellant Respondent Shri Bhagwant Multistate Vs Pr.Cit-4, Pune. Credit Co-Op. Society Ltd., 739/7/17, Patil Plot, Shivaji Nagar Barshi, Solapur. Pan: Aamas 3645 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kiran B. Sanmane, CAFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-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…

Omm Shree Realcon Pvt. Ltd, Bhubaneswar vs. Pr.CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 97/CTK/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2018-19 Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit- Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-1 Plot No.418, Forest Park, 8, Forest Park, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabco 3118 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca S.K.Sarangi, Ca Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 28 /0 06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28 /0 /06/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK (Through virtual hearing) BEFORE BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AND RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2018-19 Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Vs. Pr. CIT- Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-1 Plot No.418, Forest Park, 8, Forest Park, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No. PAN/GIR No.AABCO 3118 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.K.Sarangi, CA S.K.Sarangi, CA Revenue by…

M/S Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., E-8, Epip Riico Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 260/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 30Section 44

…re, 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 CIT could not exercise his powers u/s 263. CIT Vs. Max India 295 ITR 282 (SC) Where two views are possible and the ITO has taken one view with which the CIT 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 CIT passed the impugned order under sec. 263, two views were inherently possible on the word…