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 366,470 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.

Valour Autopack, Gor Khijadiya, Morbi Gujarat vs. The Pr. CIT 1 Rajkot, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 271/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanja Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269S

…O., 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. C.I.T. 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…

Decent Securities (P) Ltd, Delhi vs. Pr, CIT Delhi-1, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4799/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms Madhumita Roym/S. Decent Securities (P) Ltd, Vs. Pr. Cit, Kd-195, Pitampura, Delhi-1 New Delhi-110034 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacd4440N Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Adv Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Shri Ankit Kumar, Adv Revenue By: Shri Daya Inder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 13/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Daya Inder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…w has been taken by the ld AO, the same cannot be subjected to revision u/s 263 of the Act. Reliance is placed rightly on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd reported in 243 ITR 83 (SC) and Max India Ltd reported in 295 ITR 282 (SC). Hence, no error could be attributed in the order of the ld AO on account of addition not being made in respect of 15 loan creditors. Accordingly, the ld AO had indeed made verification of evidences in respect of 15 loan creditors proving the 3 ingredients of Section 68 of the Act. Hence, it cannot be said that ld AO has not made adequate en…

M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Kumbakonam vs. PCIT, Madurai

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 1126/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan, F.C.A. &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N., CIT
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 17(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…mitted that there is no reason to invoke Sec.263 of Act by the Ld.PCIT and prayed for set aside the order of the Ld.PCIT. In support of their arguments the Ld.ARs relied on the following judicial precedents: - CIT (Central), Ludhiana vs Max India Ltd – [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) PCIT Vs.V-con Integrated Solutions Pvt. Ltd. – [2025] 173 taxmann.com - 774 (SC) CIT Vs. A.R. Builders & Developers P Ltd – [2020] 425 ITR 272 (Mad) - Shri Perinba Raja Ramesh Versus PCIT (Central) Chennai-1 And Shri - PaulpandianUthamaraj Winston Versus PCIT (Central) Chennai-1 - ITA Nos. :418 to 421/Chny/2025 And ITA Nos. :422 to 425/Chny/…

Subhash Jaiswal Associates, Bareilly vs. PCIT Bareilly, Bareilly

ITA 100/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

For Appellant: Respondent by
Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.100/LKW/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Subhash Jaiswal Associates 71, Newada Sheikhan, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh-243001. PAN:AAMAS7252B (Appellant) Appellant by: Respondent by: V. Shri Devinder Singh Kalyan, PCIT, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh-243001. (Respondent) Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR) ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.: (A) Vide ITA. No.100/LKW/2022 appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order d…

Haryana Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Panchkula vs. DCIT, Exemption, Sector 17

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 339/CHANDI/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 263

…record. 3.1.3 It is settled law that where the Learned AO has made enquiries and taken one of the possible views, the Learned Commissioner cannot invoke section 263 merely because he has a different opinion. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India Ltd. [295 ITR 282] held that when two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one such view, revision under section 263 is not permissible. 3.1.4 Section 263 can be invoked only if the impugned assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The twin conditions are conjunctive, satisfaction of only one does not permit…

Haryana Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Panchkula vs. DCIT, Exemption, Chandigarh

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 338/CHANDI/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 263

…ecord. 3.1.3 It is settled law that where the Learned AO has made enquiries and taken one of the possible views, the Learned Commissioner cannot invoke section 263 merely because he has a different opinion. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India Ltd. [295 ITR 282] held that when two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one such view, revision under section 263 is not permissible. 3.1.4 Section 263 can be invoked only if the impugned assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The twin conditions are conjunctive, satisfaction of only one does not permi…

Haryana Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Panchkula vs. CIT(Exemption), Chandigarh

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 63/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 263

…ecord. 3.1.3 It is settled law that where the Learned AO has made enquiries and taken one of the possible views, the Learned Commissioner cannot invoke section 263 merely because he has a different opinion. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India Ltd. [295 ITR 282] held that when two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one such view, revision under section 263 is not permissible. 3.1.4 Section 263 can be invoked only if the impugned assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The twin conditions are conjunctive, satisfaction of only one does not permi…

Shri Multanchand Bora Trust, Pune vs. ACIT, Exemption, Circle- Aurangabad, Aurangabad

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1312/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1312/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Shri Multanchand Bora Trust, V The Assistant/Deputy 132B/2A, Ganeshkhind Road, S. Commissioner Of Income Pune – 411007. Tax, Exemption Circle, Aurangabad. Pan: Aafts3329F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Shrenik Gandhi Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde –Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune At Nashik Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21, Dated 30.03.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 20.09.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Ground No. 1: The Learned Cit (Exemption) Seriously Erred On The Facts & Law, In Exercising The Revisionary Powers Under Section

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

…ercise of revisional power under Section 263would not be justified. Reliance in this regard has been placed on a judgment of this Court in MalabarIndustrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83/109 Taxman 66 which has been approved in CIT v. Max IndiaLtd. [2007] 295 ITR 282/[2008] 166 Taxman 188 (SC). 21. There can be no doubt that so long as the view taken by the Assessing Officer is a possible view the sameought not to be interfered with by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act merely on the ground thatthere is another possible view of the matter. Permitting exercise of revisional power in a situation whe…

Vaksons Metaplast Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. PCIT(Central), Delhi

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

ITA 2218/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 139Section 143Section 153Section 153CSection 234ASection 263Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘A’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2217/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Vaksons Metaplast Pvt. Ltd., vs. PCIT (Central), 105, Barodia Tower, Central Market, Delhi – 1. D Block, Prashant Vihar, Sector 11, Rohini, New Delhi – 110 085. (PAN : AAFCV0902J) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Smt. Rano Jain, Advocate Ms. Mansi Jain, CA Shri Tanishq Ahuja, CA REVENUE BY : Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 10.09.2025 Date of Order : 05.12.2025 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOU…

Vaksons Metaplast Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. PCIT(Central), Delhi

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

ITA 2217/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 139Section 143Section 153Section 153CSection 234ASection 263Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘A’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2217/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Vaksons Metaplast Pvt. Ltd., vs. PCIT (Central), 105, Barodia Tower, Central Market, Delhi – 1. D Block, Prashant Vihar, Sector 11, Rohini, New Delhi – 110 085. (PAN : AAFCV0902J) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Smt. Rano Jain, Advocate Ms. Mansi Jain, CA Shri Tanishq Ahuja, CA REVENUE BY : Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 10.09.2025 Date of Order : 05.12.2025 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOU…

Vaksons Metaplast Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. PCIT(Central), Delhi

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

ITA 2216/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 139Section 143Section 153Section 153CSection 234ASection 263Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘A’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2217/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Vaksons Metaplast Pvt. Ltd., vs. PCIT (Central), 105, Barodia Tower, Central Market, Delhi – 1. D Block, Prashant Vihar, Sector 11, Rohini, New Delhi – 110 085. (PAN : AAFCV0902J) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Smt. Rano Jain, Advocate Ms. Mansi Jain, CA Shri Tanishq Ahuja, CA REVENUE BY : Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 10.09.2025 Date of Order : 05.12.2025 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOU…

Bhavana Co-Op Credit Society Niyamita, Sirsi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sirsi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1074/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(i)

…e Assessing Officer takes recourse to one of the two courses possible in law or where there are two views possible and the Commissioner does not agree with the view taken by the Assessing Officer which has resulted in a loss. [See CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC)]. (vi) There is no requirement of issuance of a notice before commencing proceedings under section 263 of the Act. What is required is adherence to the principles of natural justice by granting to the assessee an opportunity of being heard before passing an order under section 263. [See Electro House's case (supra)]. (vii) If the Assessing…

Gonikoppal Primary Rural Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Kodagu vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-3, Bengaluru

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1072/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(i)

…e Assessing Officer takes recourse to one of the two courses possible in law or where there are two views possible and the Commissioner does not agree with the view taken by the Assessing Officer which has resulted in a loss. [See CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC)]. (vi) There is no requirement of issuance of a notice before commencing proceedings under section 263 of the Act. What is required is adherence to the principles of natural justice by granting to the assessee an opportunity of being heard before passing an order under section 263. [See Electro House's case (supra)]. (vii) If the Assessing…

International Flavours & Fragrances India Private Limited, Chennai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

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

ITA 268/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwalla, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N., C.I.T
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 801B

…lowing judicial precedents: The judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd in 243 ITR 83 (2000). [Para 6 to 10 Page no. 04 of Case law Paper Book] and Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Max India Ltd in 295 ITR 282 (2007) [Para 2 Page No. 07 of Case law Paper Book]. 9. It is therefore clear that the AO had exercised his quasi-judicial discretion after examining the material placed before him. The Id.PCIT cannot now allege lack of enquiry or substitute his own opinion on the adequacy of enquiry. As laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, such an order cannot…

Microsoft Corporation (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2933/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2019-20
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…which is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. This principal has been again reiterated by Hon’ble Court in its subsequent judgment in the case of CIT vs Max India Ltd. reported in 295 ITR 282 (SC). 21. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V/s Vikas Polymers (supra), further observed that as regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. reported in [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bombay HC) held with reference to Black's Law Dictionary that an "erroneous j…

Star Paper Mills Limited, Kolkata vs. PCIT - 2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 641/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)

…er does not agree, 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. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282) has held as under: "The phrase "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" has to be read in conjunction with an 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 interests of the Revenue, for example, when an Income-tax Officer…

Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. PCIT - 1, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2075/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 35Section 35(1)Section 80GSection 80I

…. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 82 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC).” The same principle has also been reiterated in the following cases: 259 ITR 502 (Guj), CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers • 354 ITR 489 (Kar), CIT vs. Digital Global Soft Ltd. • 295 ITR 282 (SC), CIT vs. Max India Ltd. • 395 ITR 1 (SC), CIT vs. Quality Steel Suppliers Complex • 6.2 Keeping into consideration the principle as propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial (supra), it has been further held by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. in 333 I…

Anjani Agarwal, Kolkata vs. PCIT (Central) Kolkata - 2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 403/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Pcit (Central) Kolkata-2, Anjani Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle-4(3), 1D, Ashoka, 14, Ashoka Road, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, Alipore H.O. Vs. 110, Shantipally, Kolkata- Kolkata-700027, West Bengal 700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aehpa0038H Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(x)

…rmed by the Hon,ble Apex Court in PCIT Vs V. Con Integrated Solutions (P) Ltd (2025) 173 taxmann.com 774(SC) by dismissing the SLP filed by the Revenue. Similarly the ld AR also relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court namely CIT Vs Max India Ltd. (2008) 295 ITR 282(SC) and Ultratech Cement Ltd Vs State of Rajasthan (2020) 117 taxmann.com 807(SC) to defend his arguments that where the AO has taken one view of the two possible view with which the ld PCIT does not agree even then the assessment order can not be treated as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 06. The ld. DR on the…

Rico Auto Industries Limited, Ludhiana vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ludhiana

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 703/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.702/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.703/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S Rico Auto Industries Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 बनाम/ B-26, Focal Point Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar Vs. Ludhiana (Punjab)-141010 Ludhiana (Punjab) - 141001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacr-8724-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) (Virtual) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. In These Twin Appeals, The Assessee Assails Proposed Revision Of The Assessment Order By Revisionary Authority U/S 263 For Assessment Years (Ay) 2020-21 & 2021-22. Facts Are Stated To Be Identical In Both The Years. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2020-21 Wherein The Assessee Challenges Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) (Virtual) – Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

…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 in Grasim Industries Ltd. V/s CIT (321 ITR 92). The ratio of all these decisions is that where two views are possible and AO has preferred one view against another view, order could not be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 13. In the case of Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108),…

Rico Auto Industries Limited, Ludhiana vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ludhiana

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 702/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.702/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.703/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S Rico Auto Industries Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 बनाम/ B-26, Focal Point Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar Vs. Ludhiana (Punjab)-141010 Ludhiana (Punjab) - 141001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacr-8724-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) (Virtual) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. In These Twin Appeals, The Assessee Assails Proposed Revision Of The Assessment Order By Revisionary Authority U/S 263 For Assessment Years (Ay) 2020-21 & 2021-22. Facts Are Stated To Be Identical In Both The Years. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2020-21 Wherein The Assessee Challenges Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) (Virtual) – Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

…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 in Grasim Industries Ltd. V/s CIT (321 ITR 92). The ratio of all these decisions is that where two views are possible and AO has preferred one view against another view, order could not be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 13. In the case of Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108),…