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.

Ucb India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 8(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1081/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234B

…, Allahabad Vs. Sincere Construction: [2015] 54 taxmann.com 31 (Allahabad), (iii) Rallis India Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 1(3) [2010] 323 ITR 54 (Bombay), (iv) Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Ludhiana Vs. Max India Ltd.: [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC), (v) Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K. Venkateswerarao : [1998] 169 ITR 330 (Andhra Pradesh), (vi) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Schlumberger Sea Co. Inc. : [ 2003] 264 ITR 331 (Calcutta), (vii) Jiyajerrao Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer : [1981] 130 ITR 710 (Calcutta). Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative submitte…

Shri Bhawani Shankar Parashar, Indore vs. The DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), Indore

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 411/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Shri Bhawani Shankar Pr. CIT-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: BGBPP 2475 G Assessee by Shri S.N. Agrawal, AR Revenue by Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement 21.06.2023 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the revision order dated 18.02.2022 of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (in…

Parshavnath Builders, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 284/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri MahendraGargieya ,Adv. &For Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

…the interest of the Revenue, unless the view taken by 10 PARSHAVNATH BUILDERS VS PCIT, UDIAPUR 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…

Castlemaine Premises Co-Op Society Ltd, Pune vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Pune

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

ITA 576/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Pune19 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 576/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Castlemaine Premises Co-Op Society Ltd., Godrej Castlemaine, 42, Sassoon Rd., Next To Ruby Hall Clinic, Pune. Pan: Aaaac5155H . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle- 4, Pune . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Keyur Patel सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 15/06/2023 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 15/06/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2018-19 Is Assailed Against The Revisionary Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Dt. 17/03/2023 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Ascended Out Of Assessment Order Dt. 24/02/2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 143(3A) & 143(3B) By The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi, [For Short “Ao”].

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
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…

M/S Rani Sati Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-12(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 85/KOL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT D/R
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 68

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT & DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 85/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/s. Rani Sati Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(3), 20, Maharshi Debendra Road Vs Kolkata Fourth Floor Room No. 10, Burrabazar Kolkata - 700007 [PAN : AABCR2446R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sunil Surana, FCA Revenue by : Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 09/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronounceme…

Balwantpuram Samrahya L-7 (Lmnop) Co-Operative Housing Society, Kothrud vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune-2, Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 654/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2023AY 2018-19
For Appellant: NoneFor 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…

Balwantpuram Samrajya L6 Hijk Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Kothrud vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune-2, Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 653/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2023AY 2018-19
For Appellant: NoneFor 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…

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 630/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: The Action Was Initiated In This Case. The Revision Order Be Set Aside.

For Appellant: Shri M K Kulkarni and Mrs. JR ChandekarFor 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…

Kirloskar Oil Engine Employees Co- Op Credit Society Ltd, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune-2, Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 605/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2023AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Rohit C KasatFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 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 Baranagar Jute Factory Plc, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 1, Kolkata

ITA 1149/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1149/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Baranagar Jute Factory Plc Principal Cit-1, Kolkata C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates Vs Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane Suite-213, 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Aabct0134C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, A/R Revenue By : Shri G.H. Sema, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/04/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: This Is The Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Pr. Cit”], Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 28/03/2018 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessee Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Pr. Cit U/S 263 Of The Act Through The Various Grounds Of Appeal. 2. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessment Was Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dt. 31/03/2016. The Ld. Pr. Cit, Upon Perusal Of The Assessment Records, Observed That The Assessing Officer Has Not Examined The Four Issues Which Were Discussed By The Ld. Pr. Cit In The Revisionary Order Which Are Extracted Below:- “2. On A Perusal Of The Assessment Record Of The Assessee, It Was Observed As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, A/RFor Respondent: Shri G.H. Sema, CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56

…PLC 5 views then the Assessing Officer’s order cannot be treated as erroneous order if the ld. Pr. CIT holds a different view. In defense of the arguments the ld. A/R relied on the decision the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Max India Ltd (2007) 295 ITR 282(SC). The ld. A/R also relied on the decision Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC), to corroborate his contentions that the phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue' has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer and every loss of revenue as…

Rajkumar Impex Private Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT - 4, Chenai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 631/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jun 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy (CIT) – Ld.DR
Section 263

…ted as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. The said principal has been reiterated by Hon’ble Court in its subsequent judgment titled as CIT V/s Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282). Similar principal has been followed in Grasim Industries Ltd. V/s CIT (321 ITR 92). 1.2 The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s Vikas Polymers (supra), further observed that as regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993 203 ITR 108 (Bombay)], held with reference to Bl…

Janahit Nagari Sahakari Pathpedhi Limited, Pune vs. Principla Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 521/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jun 2023AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkende
Section 143Section 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). 4 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 ba…

Ga Infra Private Limited, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 219/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Shailendra Sharma (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…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…

M/S Roy and Sahani Company, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward 24(1), Hooghly

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 169/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R
Section 143(3)Section 263

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 169/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s. Roy and Sahani Company Income Tax Officer, Ward-24(1), Boinchee Bilsara Road Vs Hooghly Pandua Hooghly - 712134 [PAN : AAGFR6501F] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 23/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 12/06/2023 आदेश/O R D…

Salt Lake Shiksha Sadan, Kolkata vs. ITO(Exemp.)Ward 1(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 209/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.209/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Salt Lake Shiksha Sadan.................................................................……Appellant Ca-49, Salt Lake, Sector-1, Kolkata-700064. [Pan: Aadts4747F] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Kolkata...............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 03, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 12, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.03.2021 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Pcit’) Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Society Is Involved In Educational Activity & Is Registered As A Charitable Institution U/S 12A Of The Act & Thus Entitled To The Deductions U/S 11 Of The Act. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Nil Income For Claiming Deduction U/S 11 Of The Act Which Was Accepted By The Assessing Officer. Thereafter, The Ld. Pcit Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act Observed From The Assessment Records That The Development Fund Of

Section 11Section 12ASection 263

…to be originally treated towards corpus fund of the recipients and it has been held that the same were not the revenue receipt. The ld. counsel has further relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd. reported in 295 ITR 282, wherein, it has been held that where two views are possible and the Income Tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, unless the view taken by the Income Tax Officer is unsustainable in law. The ld. counsel has further invited…

Totgars Co-Operative Sale Society Ltd, Sirsi vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubballi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 168/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan & Ms. Bhoomija Verma, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2017-18 The Totgars’ Co-operative Sale Vs. The Principal Commissioner Society Ltd., of Income Tax, APMC Yard, Sirsi – 581 402. Hubli. Uttara Kannada District. PAN: AACAT 0251D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan & Ms. Bhoomija Verma, Advocates. Respondent by : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 01.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 12.06.2023 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member T…

Hubergroup India Private Limited, Vapi vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 133/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.133/Srt/2022 (Ay 2018-19) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Hubergroup India Pvt. Ltd. Principal Commissioner Of Plot No.808/E, Phase-Ii, Income Tax, Valsad, Room Vs Gidc, Vapi-396195 No.301, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax Pan No. Aaach 7063 F Office, Palak Arcade, Pali Hill, Santi Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-396001 ""थ" /Respondent अपीलाथ"/Appellant

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 254(1)Section 263Section 80ISection 92C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सुरत "ायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./ITA No.133/SRT/2022 (AY 2018-19) (Hearing in Virtual Court) Hubergroup India Pvt. Ltd. Principal Commissioner of Plot No.808/E, Phase-II, Income Tax, Valsad, Room Vs GIDC, Vapi-396195 No.301, 3rd Floor, Income Tax PAN No. AAACH 7063 F Office, Palak Arcade, Pali Hill, Santi Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-396001 ""थ" /Respondent अपीलाथ"/Appellant िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee by Shri A Gopalakrishnan Aiyer, C.A राज" की ओर से /Revenue by…

Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Patna vs. C.I.T. -1

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 23/PAT/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ITA No. 23/PAT/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA-PATNA ‘e-COURT’, KOLKATA [Virtual Court Hearing] Before Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ) & Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 23/PAT/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank,.................. Appellant C/o. Nirmal & Associates, Chartered Accountants, Nepali Kothi, Opp. Gasoline Petrol Pump, Boring Road, Patna-800001 [PAN:AAAAM7216M] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1,..Respondent Patna Appearances by: Shri Nishant Maitin, CA, appeared on behalf of…

Urulikanchan Gramin Bigarshety Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(3), Pune

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 555/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Shashank Deogadkar
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…

Tuljabhavani Nagri Sahkari Patpehi Ltd, Panvel vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Thane

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 501/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena
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…