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 367,322 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.

Shri Manmohan Singh Kapur, Hoshiarpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 68/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…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. 66/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Harneet Kaur Juneja V. Pr. Commissioner of Income R/o 216 Lajpat Nagar, Tax-1, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Punjab) [PAN: AJBPJ 4673Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 67/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Sukhjit Singh V. Pr. Commissioner of Income Village & P.O. Manik Dheri, Tax-1, Jalandhar Hoshiarpur (Punjab) [PAN: BHAPS 9843P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 68/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017…

Shri Sukhjit Singh, Hoshiarpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 67/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…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. 66/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Harneet Kaur Juneja V. Pr. Commissioner of Income R/o 216 Lajpat Nagar, Tax-1, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Punjab) [PAN: AJBPJ 4673Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 67/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Sukhjit Singh V. Pr. Commissioner of Income Village & P.O. Manik Dheri, Tax-1, Jalandhar Hoshiarpur (Punjab) [PAN: BHAPS 9843P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 68/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017…

Smt Harneet Kaur Juneja, Jalandhar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 66/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…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. 66/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Harneet Kaur Juneja V. Pr. Commissioner of Income R/o 216 Lajpat Nagar, Tax-1, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Punjab) [PAN: AJBPJ 4673Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 67/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Sukhjit Singh V. Pr. Commissioner of Income Village & P.O. Manik Dheri, Tax-1, Jalandhar Hoshiarpur (Punjab) [PAN: BHAPS 9843P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 68/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017…

M/S Shriram Properties Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT-Central1, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 431/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 431/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. Ananthan, CA & Ms. Lalitha. RFor Respondent: Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

…ot be held to be erroneous simply because in his order he did not make an elaborate discussion in that regard. This principle is supported by plethora of judicial precedents, including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Max India Ltd (295 ITR 282). :-30-: ITA. No: 431/Chny/2022 18. In this factual and legal background, if we examine the facts of the present case, we find that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, because all issues considered by the Pr. CIT in revision proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act has…

Shri Sukhjinder Singh, Jalandhar vs. Prinicpal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 71/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 263

…ner does not agree, the order passed by the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The principles laid down in the aforesaid decision were reiterated by the Supreme Court in ‘CIT Vs. Max India Ltd, 295 ITR 282 (SC) and recently in ‘Ultratech Cement Ltd vs State of Rajasthan Ors, Civil Appeal No. 2773/202 decided on 17.07.2020. Further in the case of PCIT vs. V. Dhana Reddy & Co. - [2018] 100 taxmann.com 358 (SC) it has been held that If AO had adopted a plausible view, revision u/s 263 not sustainable. 13 Sukhjinder Singh v. Pr. CIT 13. We have to…

Shri Keshoraipatan Sahkari Sugar Mills Limited, Kota vs. PCIT, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 208/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Sh. James Kurian (CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(d)

…nue, 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). 11 Shri Keshoraipatan Sahkari Sugar Mills Ltd., Kota vs. PCIT 1.2 Also kindly refer CIT v/s Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) wherein it is held that: "The phrase "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" in S. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has to be read in conjunction with the expression "erroneous" order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the inte…

K.R.Overseas Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT-(Central)-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

ITA 185/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'ए' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A” BENCH, KOLKATA श्री राजपाल यादव, उपाध्यक्ष (कोलकाता क्षेत्र) एवं डॉ. मनीष बोरड, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before SRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT & DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 185/KOL/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 K. R. Overseas Pvt. Ltd.....…………............................Appellant [PAN: AACCK 0101 B] Vs. Pr. CIT, Kolkata-2, Kolkata...................................Respondent Appearances by: Sh. N.S. Saini, A/R, appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Sh. Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT (D/R), appeared on b…

M/S. Pearl Tracom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-4, Kolkata

ITA 495/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'बी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री राजपाल यादव, उपाध्यक्ष (कोलकाता क्षेत्र) एवं डॉ. मनीष बोरड, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before SRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT & DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 495/KOL/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 M/s. Pearl Tracom Pvt. Ltd....………….......................Appellant [PAN: AABCP 9934 G] Vs. PCIT-4, Kolkata....................................................Respondent Appearances by: Sh. Siddharth Jhajharia, FCA, appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Sh. Sudipta Guha, CIT, (D/R), appeared on…

Shrimati. Lata Narang, Jalandhar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 35/ASR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Rajinder Kaur, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 5(2)Section 6

…ioner does not agree, the order passed by the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The principles laid down in the aforesaid decision were reiterated by the Supreme Court in ‘CIT Vs. Max India Ltd, 295 ITR 282 (SC) and recently in ‘Ultratech Cement Ltd vs State of Rajasthan Ors, Civil Appeal No. 2773/202 decided on 17.07.2020. Further in the case of PCIT vs. V. Dhana Reddy & Co. - [2018] 100 taxmann.com 358 (SC) it has been held that If AO had adopted a plausible view, revision u/s 263 not sustainable Further the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in…

M/S Good Earth Fertilizers Company P Ltd [Chemikas Speciality LLP], Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward - 2[2], Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 424/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.424/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Good Earth Fertilizers- The Income Tax Officer, Co. P. Ltd., Corporate Ward-2(2), (Now Known As Chemikas Chennai. Specialty Llp), No.2, North Crescent Road, T. Nagar,Chennai-600 017. [Pan:Aasfg 6012 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.R.Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

…d as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. At this juncture, it is relevant to discuss various case laws relied upon by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee, on provisions of Sec.263 of the Act: • The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd.(295 ITR 282) has held that when an ITO adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue or where two views are possible and the ITO has taken one view with which the CIT did not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Madras High Court followed the above decision of the…

Jakhau Salt Company P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 367/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.367/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S. Jakhau Salt Co. P. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner – No.2, North Crescent Road, Of Income Tax, T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai. [Pan:Aaacw 0867 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.S.Sridhar, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 09.01.2023 : घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2023

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी महावीर िसंह, माननीय उपा"", एवं "ी मंजूनाथा .जी, , माननीय लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA.G, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.367/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 v. M/s. Jakhau Salt Co. P. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner – No.2, North Crescent Road, of Income Tax, T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai. [PAN:AAACW 0867 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.S.Sridhar, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर…

Shri Sunny Chadrakant Fudhanawala, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner Income Tax Officer, Cir3(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 271/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.271/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Sunny Chandrakant Deputy Commissioner Of Fudhnawala, 47, Matawadi, Income Tax, Circle-3(3), Vs. Nr. Bhavani Mata Mandir, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate Lambe Hanuman Road, Nr. New Civil Hospital Road, Surat-395006 Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahpf 6359 G (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Manish J Shah, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-D.R

For Appellant: Shri Manish J Shah, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

…es, which is not permissible. Hon’ble Bombay High Court 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 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 bee…

Kamalesh Kumar Sheth (HUF), Chennai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Chennai

In the result, the appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 215/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri B.Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri S.Senthil Kumar, (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)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 by jurisdictional High Court in Grasim Industries Ltd. V/s CIT (321 ITR 92). Thus, it is clear that an order cannot be termed as "erroneous" unless it is not in accordance with law. 8 If an Income-tax Officer acting in accordance with law makes a certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as "erroneous"…

M/S Sumilon Industries Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 87/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.87/Srt/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) M/S Sumilon Industries Pvt. Principal Commissioner Of Ltd. 6-121-A, Vairagini Wadi, Income-Tax-1, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Delhi Gate, Surat-395003 Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcs3567 L (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Mukund Bakshi, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By: Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-D.R

For Appellant: Shri Mukund Bakshi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-D.R
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…, 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." 10. Following the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282(SC) reiterated that the phrase "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" as used in section 263(1) of the Act must be read in conjunction with the expression "erroneous" and unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is found to be unsustainable in law, the powers under section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked. 11. In view of legal positi…

Commissioner of Income Tax (C) -II vs. M. K. Foundation

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue

ITA/147/2009HC Calcutta09 Feb 2023

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 9Th February, 2023 Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. …For The Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. …For The Respondent. The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’ For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th September, 2008 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata (The Tribunal) In It(Ss)A No.68/Kol/2006 For The Block Period From 01.04.1990 To 24.08.2000. The Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law: (A) Whether In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Tribunal Was Justified In Law To Cancel

Section 2(22)(e)Section 260ASection 263

…8(Cal) was available, and, therefore, the CIT could not have ignored the said decision and assume jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. The assessee also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Max India Ltd. reported in 213 CTR 266 (SC) and CIT vs. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel Pvt. Ltd. reported in 263 ITR 255 (SC). After considering the submissions made on either side and paragraph 10 of the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has noted that the undisputed and admitted facts. Thereafter it proceeded to consider as to how a deeming provision should be construed and by rely…

Shri Nitin Bothra, Indore vs. He PCIT -1 Indore, Indore

ITA 108/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Nitin Bothra Pr. Cit-1 बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abqpb0064J Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 18.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…he views, the PCIT cannot treat the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In support of the above proposition, we rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Max India Limited reported in (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Limited reported in (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) had held that lack of inquiry or inadequate inquiry by the A.O. cannot be a reason to invoke the revisionary powers u/s 263 of the I.T.Act. The relevant finding of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court reads as follows:- "..... therefore on…

Subhash Chand Dhingra, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1063/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…dition for invoking provisions of section 263 of the Act must cumulatively be satisfied and reliance in this regard was placed on the judgment:-  Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT : 243 ITR 83 (SC)  CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)]  CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR 1(SC)  Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT: 263 ITR 437 (P&H)  Vimgi Investment (P) Limited: 290 ITR 505 (Del)  CIT vs. Gabriel India Limited: 203 ITR 108 (Bom) 17. Ld Counsel submitted that merely because the ld AO has not specifically mentioned that he had examined/ verified particular issu…

Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-1(1), Gurgaon

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1061/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…dition for invoking provisions of section 263 of the Act must cumulatively be satisfied and reliance in this regard was placed on the judgment:-  Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT : 243 ITR 83 (SC)  CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)]  CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR 1(SC)  Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT: 263 ITR 437 (P&H)  Vimgi Investment (P) Limited: 290 ITR 505 (Del)  CIT vs. Gabriel India Limited: 203 ITR 108 (Bom) 17. Ld Counsel submitted that merely because the ld AO has not specifically mentioned that he had examined/ verified particular issu…

Satish Kumar Dhingra, Haryana vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), Gurgaon

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1060/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…dition for invoking provisions of section 263 of the Act must cumulatively be satisfied and reliance in this regard was placed on the judgment:-  Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT : 243 ITR 83 (SC)  CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)]  CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR 1(SC)  Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT: 263 ITR 437 (P&H)  Vimgi Investment (P) Limited: 290 ITR 505 (Del)  CIT vs. Gabriel India Limited: 203 ITR 108 (Bom) 17. Ld Counsel submitted that merely because the ld AO has not specifically mentioned that he had examined/ verified particular issu…

Ravi Developments, Mumbai vs. PCIT(Central), Pune, Mumbai

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

ITA 1136/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Mahaveer JainFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 23Section 263

…asing Co Ltd (supra). Thus, from the above, it is sufficiently evident that the issue of whether the annual letting value on unsold stock of flats is taxable is a debatable issue and in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs Max India, (2007) 295 ITR 282, the revision proceedings under section 263 of the Act on this issue cannot be upheld. Further, as noted above, during the assessment proceedings, the AO called for details regarding the opening and closing stock, which was duly provided by the assessee and therefore it cannot be said that there was no enquiry by the AO on this issue. Accordingly…