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 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 367,295 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 263 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 144B Section 143(2)Section 147 Section 148 Section 1961

Issues it is cited on

malabar industrial inadequate enquiry revision u/s 263 assessment order erroneous lack of enquiry revision under section 263 section 263(1)erroneous and prejudicial section 263 section 26 principal commissioner of income-tax non-application of mind

Judgments citing CIT v. Max India Ltd.

Arvi Lights, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 47(5), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 578/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Arvi Lights, Vs Ito, 1783/1, Kundan Mansion, Ward 47(5), Bhagirath Place, Delhi. Chandni Chowk, Delhi – 110 006. Pan: Abbfa8083H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Raghunath, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.578/Del/2022 For Ay 2017-18 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi-10 [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Pcit’, In Short] In Din & Order No.Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021-22/1039802410(1) Dated 16.02.2022 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 31.05.2019 By The Ld. Assessing Officer, Ward 47(5), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’). 2. The Only Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is That Whether The Ld.Pcit Was Justified In Assumption Of Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act, In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Raghunath, Sr. DR

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : H : DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arvi Lights, Vs ITO, 1783/1, Kundan Mansion, Ward 47(5), Bhagirath Place, Delhi. Chandni Chowk, Delhi – 110 006. PAN: ABBFA8083H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rajiv Jain, CA Revenue by : Shri Raghunath, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 03.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023 ORDER PER M. BALAGANESH, AM: This appeal in ITA No.578/Del/2022 for AY 2017-18 arises out of the order of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-10 [hereinaft…

Bimla Devi, Panipat vs. ITO, Panipat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 914/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Bimla Devi, Vs Ito, H.No.398/12, Parav Mohalla, Ward 1, Samalkha, Panipat, Panipat, Haryana – 124 001. Haryana – 132101. Pan: Aalca0777A

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kaushik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Raghunath, Sr. DR

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : H : DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bimla Devi, Vs ITO, H.No.398/12, Parav Mohalla, Ward 1, Samalkha, Panipat, Panipat, Haryana – 124 001. Haryana – 132101. PAN: AALCA0777A (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Amit Kaushik, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Raghunath, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 04.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 09.05.2023 ORDER PER M. BALAGANESH, AM: This appeal in ITA No.914/Del/2022 for AY 2017-18 arises out of the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Ta…

Shriram Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd, Satara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Satara

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 342/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 May 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna JoshiFor 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…

Sant Dnyaneshwar Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune-3, Pune

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 341/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 May 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: -None-For 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 7 ITA.No.325/PUN./2023 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 fr…

Veej Mandal Karmachari Sahakar Patsanstha Maryadit, Solapur vs. Pricipal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune-4, Pune

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 325/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Pune02 May 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena

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

Vivek Agnihotri, Mumbai vs. ITO 16 (1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 4493/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadalevivek Agnihotri Vs. Ito – 16(1)(5), 1505/1506, Amarnath Aayakar Bhavan, Tower, Yari Road, M.K.Road, Versova, Andheri (W) Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400061. Pan/Gir No. : Adypa6052B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Kinjal Bhuta.Ar Respondent By : Mr. Ankush Kapoor.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 01.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Prcommissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-16, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Ms.Kinjal Bhuta.ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ankush Kapoor.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BASKARAN BR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHIR PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Vivek Agnihotri Vs. ITO – 16(1)(5), 1505/1506, Amarnath Aayakar Bhavan, Tower, Yari Road, M.K.Road, Versova, Andheri (W) Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400061. PAN/GIR No. : ADYPA6052B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Ms.Kinjal Bhuta.AR Respondent by : Mr. Ankush Kapoor.DR Date of Hearing 28.03.2023 Date of Pronouncement 01.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the PrCommissioner of Income Tax (Pr.CIT)…

Jaywantrao Bhosale Bagari Sahakari Patsantha Ltd( New Name - Sahakar Maharshi Jaywantrao Bhosale(Appa)Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., Satara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Satara

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 315/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 May 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna JoshiFor 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 7 ITA.No.315/PUN./2023 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 fr…

Solapur Mahanagarpalika Sara vs. Adharan Sevekanchi Sahakari Patsanstha Limited, Solapur

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 306/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 May 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor 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.306/PUN./2023 that admittedly the interest income was earned fr…

Skf Employee Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune-3, Pune

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 270/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 May 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor 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.270/PUN./2023 that admittedly the interest income was earned fr…

Subordinate Engineers Association, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Kolhapur

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 260/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 May 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 40A(7)Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Garud Credit & Holding Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. I.T.O WD - 9(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1270/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1270/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Garud Credit & Holding Pvt. Limited,.........Appellant D.J. Shah & Co., 2, Elgin Road, Kolkata-700020 [Pan: Aaacg9791P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-9(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 01, 2023 O R D E R

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 35DSection 68

…ITA No. 1270/KOL/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Garud Credit & Holding Pvt. Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member & Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 1270/KOL/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Garud Credit & Holding Pvt. Limited,.........Appellant D.J. Shah & Co., 2, Elgin Road, Kolkata-700020 [PAN: AAACG9791P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-9(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances by: Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, CA, appeared on behalf of the assessee…

Olympia Tech Park Private Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT - 4, Chennai

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

ITA 922/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.922/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Olympia Tech Park (Chennai) Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Private Limited, No. 1, Sidco Income Tax, Chennai-4, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai. Chennai 600 032. [Pan:Aabco8102F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.04.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai -4, Chennai, Dated 25.03.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263Section 80I

…sessments and thus submitted that the revision order passed under section 263 of the Act is invalid. Further, the ld. Counsel has relied on the following judgements: 1. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83(SC) 2. CIT vs. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282(SC) 3. CIT vs. Smifs Securities Ltd. [2012] 348 ITR 302 (SC) 4. Keva Fragraces Ltd. vs. DCIT ITA No. 334/M/2020 (Mumbai) 5. Bodal Chemical Ltd. vs. ACIT (Ahmedabad) 6. Hinduja Foundries vs. ACIT [2017] 83 taxmann.com 52 (Chennai-Trib.) 8. On the other hand, the ld. DR has submitted that as per section 142(1) of the Act, it is obligation on part o…

Prabhu Kanimozhi, Erode vs. PCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the order passed by the Commissioner dated 14

ITA 350/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate-Erode) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan (CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 69B

…the two views permissible in law (i.e.,) taxing the stock difference u/s.28, it cannot be treated as erroneous only for the reason that PCIT does not agree with that view. [Reliance is placed on ITA No.204/lnd/2019; 189 Taxman 436 (Del); 194 Taxman 504 (Del); 295 ITR 282 (SC); 243 ITR 83 (SC).] 5) The order of the PCIT is liable to be quashed, for the order passed u/s.263 was to rectify the errors of the Assessing Officer, as mentioned in para 6 of the order and in para 2.2 of the notice dt.07/03/2022, which is not possible under the said section. 6) The PCIT misconstrued the provisions of Explanation 2(a) to sec…

Sprint Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT- 3 Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 1411/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘F’ BENCH, MUMBAI. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (JM) I.T.A. No. 1411/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18) Vs. PCIT-3 Sprint Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. Knowledge House, Shyam Nagar Room No. 612 Off Jogeshwari-Vikhroli Road 6th Floor Jogeshwari East, Mumbai-400060. Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road PAN : AAJCS0579E Mumbai-400 020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Vipul Joshi & Ms. Rashmi Vyas Department by Shri Ankush Kapoor Date of Hearing 29.03.2023 Date of Pronouncement 18.04.2023 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (AM) :- The assessee has filed this a…

Kanaiya Readymade Stores, Surat vs. Pr. CIT-1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 61/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.61/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Kanaiya Readymade Stores, The Pcit-1, Surat. Vs. 3/199-200, Main Bazar, Opp. Laliya Lake, Olpad, Surat – 394540. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfk1700E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2023

Section 143(3)Section 263

…in the case of Ranka Jewellers vs. Addl. CIT (328 ITR 148) relying on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) and CIT ITA No.61/SRT/2022/AY.2017-18 Kanaiya Readymade Stores vs. Max India Ltd. [(2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC)], has held that once the issue was considered by the A.O., the remedy of the revenue could not lie in invoking of the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act. Therefore, the order of the Ld. PCIT was definitely outside the purview of section 263 of the Act. As noted above, the exercise aimed at ascertaining the correct income of the assessee has be…

Mahaveer Prasad Jain, Jaipur vs. Principal CIT-2, New Central Revenue Building

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Khandelwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Avadesh Kumar (CIT) a

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

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

Dharmendra Mehta, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 201/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

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

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 44A

…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…

Misrilall Mines Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 259/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ee when the decisions are available both in favour of the assessee and against the assessee. The Ld. A.R also relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co Ltd.Vs CIT (2000)243 ITR 86(SC) and CIT Vs Max India Ltd (2007)295 ITR 282(SC) to defend his arguments that on debatable issue revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act is not available. The ld AR further argued that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunil Lamba in ITA 465/2003 dated 20.03.2019after considering the above two decisions of the Honble Apex Court has held that the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the…

World Trade Park Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT - 5, Mumbai

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

ITA 1364/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaleworld Trade Park Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit -5 4Th Floor, Wtp, Jln Room No. 515, 5Th Marg, Jaipur, Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Rajasthan – 302107 Mk Road, Mumbai-400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccr8969E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Rajiv Sahai.Ar Respondent By : Shri.Dr.Kishordhule.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 08.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.03.2023 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)-52, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sahai.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Dr.KishorDhule.CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 271B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BASKARAN BR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHIR PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER World Trade Park Ltd., Vs. Pr. CIT -5 4th Floor, WTP, JLN Room No. 515, 5th Marg, Jaipur, Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Rajasthan – 302107 MK Road, Mumbai-400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AACCR8969E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri Rajiv Sahai.AR Respondent by : Shri.Dr.KishorDhule.CIT-DR Date of Hearing 08.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement 17.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the Pr.…

Ajmer Development Authority, Ajmer vs. CIT(Exemption)/ ITO (Exemption), Jaipur / Jodhpur

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 89/JODH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

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