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 367,244 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.

Jankalyan Multi State Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Solapur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune-4, Pune

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

ITA 326/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raosl.

…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 existence of fact of debate on the issue of exemption of interest inc…

The Karad Merchant Sahkari Credit Sanstha Limited, Satara vs. Income Tax Ward-1, Satara

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

ITA 324/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raosl.

…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 existence of fact of debate on the issue of exemption of interest inc…

Dr Dada Gujar Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha Limited, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(1), Pune

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

ITA 323/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raosl.

…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 existence of fact of debate on the issue of exemption of interest inc…

Janseva Gb Co-Op Pat Sanstha Ltd, Ahmednagar vs. Pricipal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune-1, Pune

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

ITA 322/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raosl.

…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 existence of fact of debate on the issue of exemption of interest inc…

Mahadevnagar Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Mahadevnagar, Pune vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Pune

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

ITA 299/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raosl.

…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 existence of fact of debate on the issue of exemption of interest inc…

Dhanwantari Nagari Sahakari Patsansath, Satara vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-2, Satara

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

ITA 258/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raosl.

…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 existence of fact of debate on the issue of exemption of interest inc…

Abhinav Chetana Nagari Sahakari Pathasanstha, Pune vs. Principal Commissioenr of Income Tax, Pune-4, Pune

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

ITA 257/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raosl.

…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 existence of fact of debate on the issue of exemption of interest inc…

Kalbhairavnath Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-14(5), Pune

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

ITA 248/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raosl.

…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 existence of fact of debate on the issue of exemption of interest inc…

Jankalyan Nagari Sahakari Patsnstha Ltd, Satara vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune-3, Pune

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

ITA 226/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raosl.

…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 existence of fact of debate on the issue of exemption of interest inc…

Matoshri Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, -4, Pune

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

ITA 213/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raosl.

…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 existence of fact of debate on the issue of exemption of interest inc…

Ajinkaya Madhyamik Shikahak Sevak Sah. Patsanstha Marayadit, Satara vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Pune

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

ITA 186/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raosl.

…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 existence of fact of debate on the issue of exemption of interest inc…

Kadepathar Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Path Sanstha, Maryadit, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Pune

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

ITA 889/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raosl.

…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 existence of fact of debate on the issue of exemption of interest inc…

Shree Ghadgenath Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Karad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax -3, Pune

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

ITA 771/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raosl.

…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 existence of fact of debate on the issue of exemption of interest inc…

Hindalco Employees Coop Credit Society Ltd, Taloga vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Thane

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 500/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 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 7 ITA.No.500/PUN./2023 that admittedly the interest income was earned f…

Suvarnyug Gramin Bigar Sheti Sah Patsanstha Marya Nimgaonketki, Pune vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune-4, Pune

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 495/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 May 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhay A AvchatFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena, CIT
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…

Svl Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle(92), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 423/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.423/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S.Svl Ltd., V. The Asst. Commissioner- Shriram House, Of Income Tax, 1St Floor, No.4, Burkit Road, Corporate Cirlce-6(2), T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai.

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sivaraman, AdvFor Respondent: Dr.R.Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी वी. दुगा" राव, माननीय "ाियक सद" एवं "ी मंजूनाथा .जी, माननीय लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANJUNATHA. G, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.423/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s.SVL Ltd., v. The Asst. Commissioner- Shriram House, of Income Tax, 1st Floor, No.4, Burkit Road, Corporate Cirlce-6(2), T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. [PAN: AAACS 7696 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.B.Sivaraman, Ad…

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(1), Pune vs. Vasantrao Naik Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha, Pune

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 368/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…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 Kute Sons Dairys Ltd., Satara vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax -3, Pune

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

ITA 410/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.410/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Kute Sons Dairys Ltd., Vs. Pcit-3, Pune. S.No.406/407, At Nimbhore, Post Surwadi, Taluka Phaltan, Satara- 415523. Pan : Aabck0391C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri N. K. Rander Revenue By : Shri Keyur Patel Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.05.2023 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-3, Pune (‘The Pcit’) Dated 30.03.2022 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Has Erred In Initiating Proceedings U/S.263 & Passing The Order Without Proper Jurisdiction. Appellant Prays To Declare Proceedings & Order Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri N. K. RanderFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 41(1)Section 68

…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 5 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 where the Assessing Officer had examined the issues sought to be revise…

M/S Torrent Roofing System, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4, Hoshiarpur

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical

ITA 84/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143Section 263Section 40(1)(ia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 84/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/sTorrent Roofing Systems, V. Income Tax Officer, C/o Sachin K Malhotra Ward-4, Hoshiarpur (Adv.), Phagwara Road, Hoshiarpur [PAN: AAHFT 1660L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv. Respondent by Sh. Radhey Shyam Jaiswal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 09.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 12.05.2023 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of…

Kaur Kookies (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT, Delhi-4, New Delhi

Appeal are allowed

ITA 1119/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 263Section 36

…ation, it could be alleged that, the order of assessment framed by the learned officer is erroneous within the meaning of Section 263 of the Act and as such, notice is without jurisdiction. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT v. Max India Ltd. the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above case applied the ratio in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT reported in 243 ITR 83 wherein it has been held as under: "A bare reading of this provision makes it clear that the prerequisite to exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner suomoto under it, is that the order…