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 367,359 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.

Bhartesh Jain, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-1, Jaipur

ITA 326/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Manish AgarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

…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 : 14 Bhartesh Jain vs. PCIT, Jaipur-1, Jaipur “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…

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 70/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 64 to 70/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 to 2018-19) (Physical hearing) Sureshbhai Babubhai Asodariya, Pr.C.I.T., 20, Sadhana Society, Mtawadi, (Central) Circle, Vs. L.H. Road, Surat-395006. Surat. PAN No. AEEPA 5402 Q Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Department represented by Shri Ashok B Koli, CIT-DR Date of hearing 20/01/2023 Date of pronouncement 25/01/2023 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER:…

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 69/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 64 to 70/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 to 2018-19) (Physical hearing) Sureshbhai Babubhai Asodariya, Pr.C.I.T., 20, Sadhana Society, Mtawadi, (Central) Circle, Vs. L.H. Road, Surat-395006. Surat. PAN No. AEEPA 5402 Q Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Department represented by Shri Ashok B Koli, CIT-DR Date of hearing 20/01/2023 Date of pronouncement 25/01/2023 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER:…

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 68/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 64 to 70/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 to 2018-19) (Physical hearing) Sureshbhai Babubhai Asodariya, Pr.C.I.T., 20, Sadhana Society, Mtawadi, (Central) Circle, Vs. L.H. Road, Surat-395006. Surat. PAN No. AEEPA 5402 Q Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Department represented by Shri Ashok B Koli, CIT-DR Date of hearing 20/01/2023 Date of pronouncement 25/01/2023 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER:…

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 67/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 64 to 70/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 to 2018-19) (Physical hearing) Sureshbhai Babubhai Asodariya, Pr.C.I.T., 20, Sadhana Society, Mtawadi, (Central) Circle, Vs. L.H. Road, Surat-395006. Surat. PAN No. AEEPA 5402 Q Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Department represented by Shri Ashok B Koli, CIT-DR Date of hearing 20/01/2023 Date of pronouncement 25/01/2023 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER:…

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 66/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 64 to 70/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 to 2018-19) (Physical hearing) Sureshbhai Babubhai Asodariya, Pr.C.I.T., 20, Sadhana Society, Mtawadi, (Central) Circle, Vs. L.H. Road, Surat-395006. Surat. PAN No. AEEPA 5402 Q Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Department represented by Shri Ashok B Koli, CIT-DR Date of hearing 20/01/2023 Date of pronouncement 25/01/2023 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER:…

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 65/SRT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 64 to 70/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 to 2018-19) (Physical hearing) Sureshbhai Babubhai Asodariya, Pr.C.I.T., 20, Sadhana Society, Mtawadi, (Central) Circle, Vs. L.H. Road, Surat-395006. Surat. PAN No. AEEPA 5402 Q Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Department represented by Shri Ashok B Koli, CIT-DR Date of hearing 20/01/2023 Date of pronouncement 25/01/2023 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER:…

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 64/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 64 to 70/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 to 2018-19) (Physical hearing) Sureshbhai Babubhai Asodariya, Pr.C.I.T., 20, Sadhana Society, Mtawadi, (Central) Circle, Vs. L.H. Road, Surat-395006. Surat. PAN No. AEEPA 5402 Q Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Department represented by Shri Ashok B Koli, CIT-DR Date of hearing 20/01/2023 Date of pronouncement 25/01/2023 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER:…

Hitkari and Swaraj Enterprises Private Limited, Barmer vs. Pr. CIT-1, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 61/JODH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

…etails/ documents filed by the ld. AR of the assessee. Now Pr. CIT-1 does not agree with the view adopted by the AO then the law does not permit him to replace the view. It is worthwhile to mention that Hon’ble Apex court in the case of CIT v. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282 (SC) has held that ‘every loss of revenue cannot be said to be HITKARI AND SWARAJ ENTERPRISES PVT LTD. VS PR. CIT-1, JODHPUR prejudicial to the interests of revenue’. As observed above in the present case , there has been no loss to the revenue and it cannot be said that the order passed by the AO was prejudicial to the interest of revenue. For t…

Satya Narayan Dhoot, Jodhpur vs. Pr. CIT-1, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in respect of above said three issues

ITA 49/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) I.T.A. No. 49/Jodh/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18) Vs. Pcit-1 Satya Narayan Dhoot C/O Rajendra Jain Advocate Jodhpur 106, Akshay Deep Complex 5Th B Road, Sardarpura Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342 001. Pan : Aanpd4945L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain Department By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain Date Of Hearing 03.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17 .01.2023 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (Am) :-

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Jodhpur Bench Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (JM) I.T.A. No. 49/Jodh/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18) Vs. PCIT-1 Satya Narayan Dhoot C/o Rajendra Jain Advocate Jodhpur 106, Akshay Deep Complex 5th B Road, Sardarpura Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342 001. PAN : AANPD4945L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rajendra Jain Department by Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain Date of Hearing 03.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement 17 .01.2023 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (AM) :- The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the revision order dated 29-03-2022 passed by Ld PCIT-1, Jodhpur and it…

M/S. the Bombay Transport Cooperative Consumer Society Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-28(3)(1), Navi Mumbai

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1026/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm M/S The Bombay Transport Co- Operative Consumer Society Ltd. The Income Tax Officer Plot No.F-1, Apmc Truck Circle 28(3)(1) Terminal, Vs. Navi Mubai 400703 Sector-19, Vashi, Mumbai-400 705 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaat2420N Assessee By : Shri M. Subramanian, Ar Revenue By : Shri H.N. Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.01.2023

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: Shri H.N. Singh, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69ASection 80

…Consumer Society Ltd.; A.Y. 17-18 Tax wherein identical issue was considered. Therefore, such loss is allowable to the assessee. He further referred to the decision of honourable Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of income tax versus Max India Ltd (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) wherein it is held that when the assessing officer adopts one of courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue, or where to views are possible and the assessing officer has taken one view, with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the revenue, unless the view tak…

Si Group India P. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3451/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri H.N. Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 31Section 32(1)Section 37(1)

…e was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that wherever two equally valid views are possible and ld.AO has taken one of the views, provisions of Section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Max India 295 ITR 282. In this case, there is a view available in favor of the ITA Nos. 3450 & 3451/Mum/2016 SI Group India Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2009-10 assessee as decided in the case of Tirumalai Chemcials. iv. It was further stated that when the claim of the assessee is allowed for A.Y. 2006-07 onwards till A.Y. 2008-09, all those orders passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, af…

Si Group India P. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3450/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri H.N. Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 31Section 32(1)Section 37(1)

…e was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that wherever two equally valid views are possible and ld.AO has taken one of the views, provisions of Section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Max India 295 ITR 282. In this case, there is a view available in favor of the ITA Nos. 3450 & 3451/Mum/2016 SI Group India Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 2009-10 assessee as decided in the case of Tirumalai Chemcials. iv. It was further stated that when the claim of the assessee is allowed for A.Y. 2006-07 onwards till A.Y. 2008-09, all those orders passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, af…

Balotra Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd., Balotra, Barmer vs. Pr. CIT-1, Jodhpur

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

ITA 77/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur16 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmim/S. Balotra Cooperative Vs The Pr. Cit Marketing Society Ltd. Jodhpur-1 Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaab 0204 C

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…aken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law.” The principle which has been laid down in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) has been followed and explained in a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282.” The principles laid down by the courts are that the Learned CIT cannot invoke his powers of revision under section 263 if the Assessing Officer has conducted enquiries and applied his mind and has taken a possible view of the matter. If there was any enquiry and a possible view is taken, it would not give occasion to the Commissioner to pass or…

O.S. Motors Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur` vs. Principal Commissioner of Income, Jodhpur

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

ITA 54/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur16 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmim/S. O.S. Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Pr. Cit Sainiks Motor Building, Chopasani Jodhpur-1 Road, Jodhpur-342001 (Raj) Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco 1896 R

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194HSection 263Section 36(1)(v)Section 40

…aken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law.” The principle which has been laid down in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) has been followed and explained in a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282.” The principles laid down by the courts are that the Learned CIT cannot invoke his powers of revision under section 263 if the Assessing Officer has conducted enquiries and applied his mind and has taken a possible view of the matter. If there was any enquiry and a possible view is taken, it would not give occasion to the Commissioner to pass o…

Nisarg Associates, Mumbai vs. PCIT Mumbai-20, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 755/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blenisarg Associates V. Ld. Pr.Cit – Mumbai – 20 Room No. 418, Piramal Chambers 1304, Ashok Heights, Near Nicco Circle Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 Nikolas Wadi Road, Gundavalli Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400069 Pan: Aahfn4619F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By Shri Ronak G. Doshi & : Shri Chaitanya D. Joshi Department Represented By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…revenue, the order cannot be treated as 'erroneous' for the purpose of section 263. For the above contention, Ld. AR of the assessee relied on the following case laws: - (i). Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (243 ITR 83) (SC) (ii). CIT Vs. Max India Ltd (295 ITR 282) (SC) (iii). CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108) (Bom HC) (iv). CIT Vs. Grasim Industries Ltd. (2014)(226 Taxman 165)(Bom HC) (v). CIT Vs. LIC Housing Finance Ltd. (2014)(367 ITR458)(Bom HC) (vi). Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010)(321 ITR 92)(Bom HC) 15. Ld. AR contended that both conditions of section 263 i.e. order is 'erroneous’ and…

Bhagawati Abhilsha Conventure, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1028/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blebhagwati Abhilsha Conventure V. Pr. Cit – Mumbai – 17 A/35, Patil Bhuvan, N.S.B. Road 120, 1St Floor, Kautilya Bhavan Mulund (W), Mumbai - 400080 Avenue-3, Near Videsh Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex Pan: Aahfb9198D Bandra(E), Mumbai – 400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri M. Subramanian Department Represented By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade

Section 1Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 263Section 43C

…g judicial decisions: 1. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. V. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) 2. CIT v NiravModi [2017] 390 ITR 292 (Bom.) 3. Moil Ltd. V. CIT [2017] 396 ITR 244 (Bom.) 4. CIT V. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom) 5. CIT V. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) 4.4 The closing stock consisting of 29 units of property are occupied/ used for the purpose of assessee's business and therefore, not chargeable to tax as per the provisions of section 22 of the Act Needless to mention that the unsold flats are held as stock in trade and therefore, no notional annual rental value on unsold flats held in stoc…

Devi, Madurai vs. PCIT, Madurai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 428/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 428/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mrs. Devi, The Principal Commissioner Of 5, 4/2, Aparna Enclave, V. Income Tax, Madurai-1, Nandhini Street, No.2, V.P. Rathnaswamy Road, Velmurugan Nagar, Bibikulam, Madurai. Madurai – 625 010. [Pan: Anjpd-2937-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri. Shrenik Choradia, Aca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.12.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44Section 68

…essee. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. In this regard, he relied upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd [2008] 166 Taxmann.com 188(SC). 7. The Ld. DR, on the other hand supporting the order of the Ld. PCIT submitted that if you go through the date of 143(2) notice and date of reply filed by the assessee, the assessee has filed reply explaining source for cash deposits at fag end of assessment proceedings and the AO does not looked into the issue in light of bank acc…

A.A. Motiwala Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT- 4, Mumbai

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

ITA 1363/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Basakaran & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalm/S. A.A. Motiwala Jewellers Vs. Prin. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., 31, Kakad Palace, Income Tax-4, Room Shop No.1, Guru Nanak Road, No.629, 6Th Floor, Bandra (West), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Mumbai – 400 050 Road, Mumbai. Pan Aakca6359B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Ms. Mamta Bansal, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘A’ BENCH, MUMBAI. BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASAKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. A.A. Motiwala Jewellers Vs. Prin. Commissioner of Pvt. Ltd., 31, Kakad Palace, Income Tax-4, Room Shop No.1, Guru Nanak Road, No.629, 6th Floor, Bandra (West), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Mumbai – 400 050 Road, Mumbai. PAN AAKCA6359B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Mr. Bharat Kumar. Respondent By : Ms. Mamta Bansal, DR Date of Hearing : 18.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 04.01.2023 O R D E R Per Shri B.R. Baskaran, A.M. : The assessee has filed this a…

Teleperformance Global Services P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT-5, Mumbai

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 976/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 976 & 977/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Teleperformance Global Vs. The Pr.Cit-5 Services Pvt Ltd., Room No. 515, 5Th Teleperformance Tower, Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Plot Cst No. 1406 Mk Road, A/28 Mindspace Mumbai – 400020. Goregaon West Mumbai– 400 064. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agarwal.Ar Respondent By : Shri H.N Singh.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.01.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Pr.Cit)-5 Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal.ARFor Respondent: Shri H.N Singh.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…d decision. We place strong reliance on the Honble Supreme Court decision in case of C.I.T. vs G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel (P) 2003 263 ITR 255 SC read with our ensuing submissions below. 3. Reliance in this regard is placed on CIT v/s. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) wherein it was held that every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. For example, when the Income tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue; or where two views are possible and the Income-tax…