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.

Rits Jewellers Pvt Ltd, Faridabad vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad

In the result, Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6226/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

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

…inquiries and after verifying the documents/ material on record passed a reasoned Assessment Order. Therefore, the Commissioner does not have any locus standi to make further inquiry. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd 295 ITR 282, Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 are aptly applicable in the present case as the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein it is held that Section 263 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…

Compucom Software Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-2, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 153/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…3. Ld. PCIT had tried to substitute her view point over the stand taken by the ld. AO. No such substitution of view is permissible in 263 proceedings. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Max India Ltd., [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) wherein the Court held as under (CLC 49- 53): “2. 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 section 263 has to be read in conjunction with the expression “erroneous” order…

Mallikarjun Virupaxappa Yarasi, Gadag vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 437/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

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

…nnot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the revenue. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of .-(i) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., reported in 243 ITR 83 and also in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd., reported in 295 ITR 282. The assessee further relied on Mallikarjun Virupaxappa Yarasi, Gadag Page 9 of 24 the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Paul Matthews & sons v CIT, reported in 263 ITR 101. 3.1 The assessee submitted that the definition of record, includes all such information available before the lower authorities and also before the PCIT…

Om Prakash Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 204/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Us. In This Appeal The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Saraswat (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

…s taken one view with which the Commissioner 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” 1.8.2 CIT v. Max India Limited [2007] 295 ITR 282 ) (SC) Held at para No. 1: “Suffice it to state that in this particular case when the order of the Commissioner was passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act two views on the said word 'profits' existed. In our view the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR…

M/S. Jan Kalyan Nagri Sahakari Pat.Limited Sanstha, Parbhani vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - Parbhani, Parbhani

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

ITA 825/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.825/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Jan Kalyan Nagri Vs. Ito, Ward- Parbhani, Sahakari Pat. Limited Sanstha, Parbhani. Sawarkar Chowk, Vidya Nagar, Parbhani-431401. Pan : Aaaaj2292G Appellant Respondent Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare : Revenue By : Shri Hitendra B. Ninawe Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Aurangabad (‘The Pcit’) Dated 28.03.2019 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Learned Cit Erred In Law & On Facts In Invoking Jurisdiction U/S 263 & Setting Aside The Assessment Order, Directing The Ao To Pass Fresh Order After Verification When The Ld Ao Had Applied His Mind After Sufficient Inquiries & Examined The Issue In The Original Assessment Proceedings In Respect Of Interest Income & Granted Deduction U/S 80P. 2. The Ld Cit Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Appreciating That The Decision Of Supreme Court In Case Of Totgars Cooperative Sales

For Respondent: Shri Hitendra B. Ninawe

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

…e above two conditions are required to be satisfied cumulatively. References in this regard can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC) and in the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282 (SC). The error in the assessment order should be one that it is not debatable or plausible view. In a case where the Assessing Officer examined the claim took one of the plausible views, the assessment order cannot be termed as an “erroneous”. In the present case, we find that admittedly the interest income was earned from the cooperative banks,…

Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Holdings Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jaipur

In the result both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 192/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Birla (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 263

…CTR (SC) 1: (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC). We also draw strength from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Development Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur 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…

Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Food Industries Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Incometax-1, Jaipur

ITA 191/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Us On The Following Grounds In This Appeal;

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Birla (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 191/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18 cuke Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Food Principal Commissioner of Industries Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax-1, Jaipur 603 Elements Mall, 6th Floor Ajmer Road, Jaipur- 302021. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAHCR 1374 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh v…

Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Development Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur

In the result both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 190/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Birla (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 263

Sidharth Ratanlal Bafna, Jalgaon vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle -2, Nashik

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

ITA 1183/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1183/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sidharth Ratanlal Bafna, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-2, 96, Nayantara, Subhash Nashik. Chowk, Jalgaon-425001. Pan : Algpb5972R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sunil Ganoo Revenue By : Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Nagpur (‘The Pcit’) Dated 08.06.2018 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Pr.Cit Has Grossly Erred In Exercising His Revisional Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act 1961. The Impugned Revisional Order Passed By The Learned Pr.Cit Is Patently Illegal., Void Ab Initio, Bad In Law, Arbitrary, Perverse, Without Jurisdiction & Being Devoid Of Merits The Same May Please Be Deleted. 2. Since The Learned Pr.Cit Has Failed To Revise The Directions Given By The Learned J.C.I.T. Nashik To The Learned Assessing Officer In The Matter Of Framing The Impugned Assessment Order U/S 143[3] R.W.S.L53A

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…e above two conditions are required to be satisfied cumulatively. References in this regard can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC) and in the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282 (SC). The error in the assessment order should be one that it is not debatable or plausible view. In a case where the Assessing Officer examined the claim took one of the plausible views, the assessment order cannot be termed as an “erroneous”. Now, we shall examine the facts of the present case. During the course of hearing of appeal before us,…

Shri Manoj Lalman Awashi, Mumbai vs. Pr.Comm of Income Tax (PCIT), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1072/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 23(5)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri Manoj Lalman Awasthi Vs. Principal Commissioner of 20, Nirman Vyapar Kendra Income Tax 4th Sector – 17, Vashi PCIT, Room No.401, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Floor, Tower No.6 Vashi Railway Station, Commercial Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 PAN/GIR No.AADPA3502G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Hiral D Sejpal Revenue by Shri Manoj Kumar Date of Hearing 08/08/2022 Date of Pronouncement 23/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA…

Rekha Shekhawat, Kota vs. Pr.CIT, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7/JPR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanajy Dhariwal, CIT

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271A

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

Neelam Medatwal, Jaipur vs. Pcti-1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 62/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Itat & The Delay Occurred May Kindly Be Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a

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

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

Abhushan Jewellerys (India ) Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -4, Mumbai

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

ITA 793/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

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

…e of assessment proceedings. Accordingly, it was submitted that the AO has accepted the explanations of the assessee after due application of mind. The assessee has relied upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Max India Ltd (2007)(295 ITR 282)(SC) and submitted that the AO has taken a possible view and hence the impugned revision proceedings should be dropped. However, rejecting objections raised by the assessee, the Ld PCIT passed the impugned revision order holding that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is rendered erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the i…

Asian Star Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 710/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” Bench, Mumbai Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (JM) I.T.A. No. 710/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18) Vs. PCIT (Central)-1 Asian Star Company Ltd. 114-C, Mittal Court 1001, 10th Floor Nariman Point Pratishtha Bhavan Mumbai-400 021. Old CGO Building Annexe, M.K. Road PAN : AAACA4856B Mumbai-400 020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Suchek Anchaliya Department by Ms. Shailja Rai Date of Hearing 17.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement 12.08.2022 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (AM) :- The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the revision order dated 31.3.2022 pas…

Sandeep Hooda, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT - 7, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 30

ITA 397/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmasandeep Hooda, Vs. Pr. Cit-7, C/O. Rra Taxindia, D-28, South New Delhi Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacph5453J

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 27Section 48Section 50Section 500(1)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 50c(2)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sandeep Hooda, Vs. Pr. CIT-7, C/o. RRA Taxindia, D-28, South New Delhi Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AACPH5453J Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv Revenue by: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 26/07/2022 10th /08/2022 Date of pronouncement: O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, J. M.: 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Assessee challenging the order dated 30.03.2021 of Ld Pr.…

Juniper Networks International B.V., Mumbai vs. CIT (International Taxation)-3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

ITA 982/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 982/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2014-15) Juniper Networks International B.V, Boeing Avenue 240, 1119Pz Schipol-Rijk, Amsterdam,0 Netherlands Pan: Aadcj-0974-G ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It), Mumbai -3, Room No.1601, 16Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 .....""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr. Advocate With Ms. Prachi Mehta &Shri Sandeep Bhalla ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Surabhi Sharma & Shri Milind Chavan सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 13/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Prachi Mehta &Shri Sandeep BhallaFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma &

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

…आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण मुंबईपीठ“आइ” "ी"वकासअव"थी, "या"यकसद"यएवं "ीएमबालगणेश, लेखाकारसद"यकेसम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं. 982/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2014-15) Juniper Networks International B.V, Boeing Avenue 240, 1119pz Schipol-Rijk, Amsterdam,0 Netherlands PAN: AADCJ-0974-G ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (IT), Mumbai -3, Room No.1601, 16th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 .....""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant by : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr. A…

Kumar Urban Development P Ltd, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-4, Pune

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

ITA 264/PUN/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

…e above two conditions are required to be satisfied cumulatively. References in this regard can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC) and in the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282 (SC). The error in the assessment order should be one that it is not debatable or plausible view. In a case where the Assessing Officer examined the claim, took one of the plausible views, the assessment order cannot be termed as an “erroneous”. 11. Now, we shall examine the facts of the present case in order to ascertain whether or not the Asses…

M/S.Kerala State Warehousing Corpn, Ernakulam vs. The ACIT, Kochi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 389/COCH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Kerala State Warehousing Vs Acit, Corporate Circle 1(2) Corporation Is Press Road Kochi 682018 Pb No. 1727, Warehousing Corporation Road Ernakulam 682016 Pan – Aabck1583G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Gopi, Ca Revenue By: Shri Shantam Bose, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shantam Bose, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 42

…ich cannot be said to prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Hence the reopening of the completed assessment is bad in law. 8 M/s. Kerala State Warehousing Corporation It is further submitted that The H'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd [295 ITR 282 (2007)] has held that when the assessing officer adopts one of two courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue, or where two views are possible and the assessing officer has taken a view with which the CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the Revenue, unless the view taken by the AO i…

M/S. Haris Marine Products, Mangaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 383/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)

Section 143Section 153DSection 263

…Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law ………" 23. The ld. AR also relied on the following decisions:- Page 15 of 23 • CIT Vs. M/s. Sun Beam Auto Limited, reported in 332 ITR 167 (Del) • CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd., 203 ITR 108 (Bom) • CIT v. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282 (SC) • Sri Ashish Prasanna Kumar Jain, ITA No.466/Bang/2020 dated 19.9.2022. 24. The ld. AR has placed reliance on the judgments of the various High Courts on the issue. 25. On the other hand, the ld DR submitted that the statement recorded u/s.132(4) is a conclusive evidence and that the AO failed to bring to tax amount declared which is errone…

M/S. Coretech Ventures (Bangalore) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-2, Bangalore

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

ITA 746/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Coretech Ventures (Bangalore) Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Divyasree Chambers’ Commissioner Of Wing-A, O Shaugnessy Income Tax, Road, Bengaluru – 2, Langford Town, Vs. Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan: Aafcc2775E Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Chandrashekar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/03/2021 Passed By Ld.Pcit, Bangalore -2 U/S. 263 Of The Act For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of Revision Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru -2, Bengaluru, Under Section 263 Of The Act Dated 30/03/2021, In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Respondent: Shri V. Chandrashekar

Section 143Section 263Section 80Section 801A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/s. Coretech Ventures (Bangalore) Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Divyasree Chambers’ Commissioner of Wing-A, O Shaugnessy Income Tax, Road, Bengaluru – 2, Langford Town, Vs. Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 025. PAN: AAFCC2775E APPELLANT RESPONDENT : Shri V. Chandrashekar, Assessee by Advocate : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, CIT- Revenue by DR Date of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 29-07-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is…