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 367,368 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.

Saint Mahapragya Educational Society, Jagroan vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemptions), Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals bearing I

ITA 76/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

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

Section 10Section 10(23)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263o

…y the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law." The principle which has been laid down in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd (supra) has been followed and explained in a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2008] 166 Taxman 188/[2007] 295 ITR 282. 6.2. In assessee's case while interpreting the treatment of advance fees as current liability or revenue receipt. The AO has taken one view in allowing the current liability on the submissions of the assessee of various judicial pronouncements rendered in the context, whereas the CIT is not in agreement with the view of the ld. AO. The decisi…

Kaushaliya Devi Dhoot, Jodhpur vs. Pr. CIT-1, Jodhpur

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

ITA 50/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainkaushaliya Devi Dhoot Vs Pr. Cit-1, 0, Lodha Street 1St A Road, Jodhpur Sardarpura, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aanpd 4947 J

Section 263Section 80I

…ken 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…

Om Prakash Mangal, Jodhpur vs. Pr. CIT-1, Jodhpur

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

ITA 48/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur04 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainom Prakash Mangal Vs Pr. Cit-1, 16B, Mahaveer Colony Jodhpur Ratanada Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acopm 6094 L

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

…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…

Sr Trust, Madurai vs. PCIT(Central), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 213/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Respondent: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan

Section 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263

…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…

V.Rajasekhar, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(5), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1357/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsri V. Rajasekhar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad Ward-14(5), [Pan No. Aadpr0797E] Hyderabad Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 263

…two conditions are met, i.e., that the order is erroneous and is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. [See Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, [2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC)/[2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd., (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC)] Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:06.07.2021 10:30:10 11.1. Therefore, the error should be one that is not debatable or a plausible view. Section 263 of the Act invests a power of revision in a superior officer and therefore, by the very nature of the power, Page 14 of 26 does not allow for supplanting…

Janata Traders, Gadag vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

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

ITA 401/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Girija, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

…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 (Central) v. Max India Ltd.' [2008] 166 Taxman 188/[2007] 295 ITR 282 and recently in 'Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan [2020] 117 taxmann.com 807 (SC). 7. The Tribunal has found that the Assessing Officer on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record has allowed depreciation on intangible assets and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) while passing the order under section 263 of the Act has held…

Trivitron Health Care Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1340/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1340/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 V. M/S.Trivitron Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner- “Sapthagiri Bhavan”, Of Income Tax, New No.15, Old No.25, Corporate Circle-3(1), Trivitron Sapthagiri Bhawan, Chennai. 4Th Street, Abhiramapuram, Chennai. [Pan: Aaact 9378 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Mr.M.Rajan, CIT

Section 119Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

…be treated as erroneous & prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, unless view taken by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and unsustainable in law. This legal principle is also laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282. In our considered view, view taken by the Assessing Officer on the issue of depreciation on goodwill is a possible view, because when 5th proviso to section 32(1) of the Act, has no application to the given facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer cannot take any view, which is contrary to provisions of section 32(1) of the Act…

Bbr Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 113/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S.Bbr Projects Private Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward – 1(14), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaccb7153J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy –

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 37Section 40

…not 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.” A similar view has also been taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (supra), wherein it has been held as under: “The phrase "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" in section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1962, 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 prej…

Narinder and Company, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(5), Jalandhar

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

ITA 93/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, C.A. and Sh. V.S. AggarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 263p

…tinent to mention that the view of ld. Assessing Officer being a plausible view, the assessment order could not be considered erroneous or prejudicial to interest of revenue. The assessee has also placed reliance upon the case of CIT v/s Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) [placed at page no 294-295 of the judgment paper book] to support the contention that in order to invoke section 263, it is a judicial requirement to satisfy twin conditions as per statute as under: Twin condition is a jurisdictional requirement as laid down by various courts.That the CIT must satisfy twin conditions, namely (i) The order…

Castamet Works Private Limited, Kharwa vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur

ITA 187/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Prakul Khurana (Adv.) &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(va)

…'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: 75 Castamet Works Private Limited vs. PCIT "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 t…

Ashokkumar Bhanwarlal Chhajer, Sanpada vs. Pr. CIT - (Central), Pune

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

ITA 1361/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

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

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” Bench, Mumbai Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (JM) I.T.A. No. 1361/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18) Vs. PCIT(Central) Ashokkumar Bhanwarlal Chhajer 2001/2002, Mahaavir Amrut Aayakar Sadan B-Wing, Sector-19, Sanpada Bodhi Tower Navi Mumbai-400 705. Salisbury Park Gultekadi PAN : AAAPC8632L Pune-411 037. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Mani Jain Department by Smt. Shailja Rai Date of Hearing 21.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement 30.09.2022 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (AM) :- The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the revision order dated 29.03.2022…

L & T Infra Debt Fund Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 809/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Section 10(47)Section 148Section 148ASection 263

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” Bench, Mumbai Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (JM) I.T.A. No. 809/Mum/2021 (A.Y. 2016-17) Vs. CIT(Exemption) L&T Infra Debt Fund Limited Plot 177, Brindavan Room No. 617 Building, CST Road 6th Floor Kalina Santacruz East Piramal Chamber Mumbai-400 098. Lal Baug, Parel Mumbai-400 012. PAN : AACCL4493R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Alpesh Dharod Department by Smt. Shailja Rai Date of Hearing 22.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement 29.09.2022 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (AM) :- The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 22.3.2021…

Nepal Singh Rathod (HUF), Hubli vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

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

ITA 400/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

M/S Southern Tpetrochemical Industries Corpration Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 232/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.232/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S.Southern Petrochemical V. The Income Tax Officer, Industries Corporation Ltd., Corporate Ward-3(1), 88, Spic House, Mount Road, Chennai. Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan:Aaacs 4668 K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. &

Section 115JSection 143Section 263

…th which the CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue unless the view taken by the ITO is unsustainable in law. 15. The Apex High Court in the case of CIT v. Max India Ltd vs CIT reported in (295 ITR 282) has held as under: At this stage we may clarify that under para 10 of the judgment in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) this Court has taken the view that the phrase “prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue” under s. 263 has to be read in conjunction with the expression “erroneous” order passed by the AO. Every loss of revenue…

Shri Kalyan Buildmart Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur

ITA 126/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. Prathviraj Meena (CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 6(3)(ii)

…CIT (2000) 159 CTR (SC) 1: (2000) 243 ITR 47 Shri Kalyan Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Pr. CIT-2, Jaipur 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…

Ai Champdany Industries Ltd vs. Commissioner, Income Tax, Central - II Kolkata, West Bengal

In the result, we find that the order of the

ITA/32/2005HC Calcutta16 Sept 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 80H

…t no substantial question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed in limine.” The revenue preferred appeal against the said decision which was dismissed in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MAX INDIA LTD. 2007 295 ITR 282 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had taken note of the fact that Section 80HHC had been amended eleven times and different views existed on the day, when the COMMISSIONER (therein) passed the order in the said case. That apart the Hon’ble Supreme Court also took note of the amendment which was made to the Section in 2005 with retrospect…

Shishpal Singh Jadaun, Karauli vs. PCIT, Udaipur

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

ITA 177/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Avadhesh Kumar, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A’’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 177/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Shishpal Singh Jadaun cuke The Pr.CIT Vs. Wardhman Nagar Udaipur Hindaun City 322 230 LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AWMPS 2734 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Manish Agarwal, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by: Shri A…

Radheyshyam Gupta, Kolkata vs. PCIT-9, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 187/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: : Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं"या/ I.T.A. No. 187/कोल/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Radheyshyam Gupta...…………............... (अपीलाथ"/Appellant [Pan: Adjpg 3274 G] Vs. Pcit-9, Kolkata........................................(""यथ")/Respondent Appearances By: Sh. S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv. & Smt. Puja Somani, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Md. Ghayas Uddin, Cit, (D/R), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of The Hearing : July 19Th, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : Sept 09Th, 2022 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax-9, Kolkata [In Short

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘A, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA सम" : "ी राजपाल यादव, उपा"य" "ी मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य Before : SRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT & SRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं"या/ I.T.A. No. 187/कोल/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Radheyshyam Gupta...…………............... (अपीलाथ"/Appellant [PAN: ADJPG 3274 G] Vs. PCIT-9, Kolkata........................................(""यथ")/Respondent Appearances by: Sh. S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv. & Smt. Puja Somani, CA, appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Md. Ghayas Uddin, CIT, (D/R), appeared on b…

M/S. Eta Star Infopark, Bengaluru vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-1, Bengaluru

ITA 248/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

…e 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." 2.30 He also relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Max India Ltd (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC), wherein referring its decision in case of The Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs CIT (supra) and also by the judgement of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Russell Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs Addl.CIT, reiterated that – “when the Assessing Officer takes one of the two views permissible in law and which the Commissioner does not agree with and…

M/S. Eta Star Infopark, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Bengaluru

ITA 415/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263