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 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.

M/S. Bosch Limited, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 475/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32ASection 35

…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 (SC). 11. In assessee’s case while interpreting the wordings “acquires and installs” in section 32AC, the AO has taken one view in allowing the deduction based on the submissions of the assessee of various judicial pronouncements rendered in the context of 32(1)(iia); whereas the CIT is not in agreement with the view based on the plain reading o…

Kabir Tripat Oberoi, Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT -20, Mumbai

In the result, assessee's appeal stands allowed

ITA 685/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 49(1)

…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: "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 ITA No.1361/Kol/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 S.K. Khemka Vs. Pr. CIT-15 Kol. Page 12 year 2005, though retrospective, d…

Kapil Tripat Oberoi, Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT -20, Mumbai

In the result, assessee's appeal stands allowed

ITA 684/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 49(1)

…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: "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 ITA No.1361/Kol/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 S.K. Khemka Vs. Pr. CIT-15 Kol. Page 12 year 2005, though retrospective, d…

Nekkanti Systems Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 637/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2014-15 Nekkanti Systems Private Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward – 16(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaccn1440J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Vs. Nekkanti Systems Private Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 16(1), Pan : Aaccn1440J. Hyderabad. Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao. Revenue By: Sri Rajendra Kumar – Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2022 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Are The Two Connected Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue For A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Against The Orders Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad Dt.29.03.2019 U/S 263 Of The Act & Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 4, Hyderabad Dt.23.01.2019 U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, Respectively.

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Sri Rajendra Kumar – CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…such, the assessment order passed for A.Y. 2014-15 is not prejudicial to the interests of revenue. In this connections, he relied on the following decisions : A) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT - (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC). B) CIT Vs. Max India Limited (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) C) Ultratech Cements Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan - (2020) 117 taxmann.com 807 (SC). D) CIT Vs. Smt. Neena Krishna Menon – (2021) 123 taxmann.com 205. E) CIT Vs. GM Mittal Stainless Steel (P) Ltd. – (2003) 263 ITR 255 (SC) F) CIT Vs. Canara Bank – (2021) 123 taxmann.com 207 G) Narayan Tatu Rane Vs. ITO – (2016) 70 taxmann.com 227. 6. On the o…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad vs. Nekkanti Systems Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 484/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2014-15 Nekkanti Systems Private Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward – 16(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaccn1440J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Vs. Nekkanti Systems Private Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 16(1), Pan : Aaccn1440J. Hyderabad. Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao. Revenue By: Sri Rajendra Kumar – Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2022 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Are The Two Connected Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue For A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Against The Orders Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad Dt.29.03.2019 U/S 263 Of The Act & Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 4, Hyderabad Dt.23.01.2019 U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, Respectively.

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Sri Rajendra Kumar – CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…such, the assessment order passed for A.Y. 2014-15 is not prejudicial to the interests of revenue. In this connections, he relied on the following decisions : A) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT - (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC). B) CIT Vs. Max India Limited (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) C) Ultratech Cements Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan - (2020) 117 taxmann.com 807 (SC). D) CIT Vs. Smt. Neena Krishna Menon – (2021) 123 taxmann.com 205. E) CIT Vs. GM Mittal Stainless Steel (P) Ltd. – (2003) 263 ITR 255 (SC) F) CIT Vs. Canara Bank – (2021) 123 taxmann.com 207 G) Narayan Tatu Rane Vs. ITO – (2016) 70 taxmann.com 227. 6. On the o…

Om Sai Co-Operative Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit, Gadag vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 454/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George CIT(OSD)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P

…tifies the revision order of the PCIT. 12. In rebuttal, the ld. AR submitted that the receipts are from the members of the assessee and hence there cannot be any unaccounted entries. He also relied on the following decisions:- • CIT v. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) • CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2010) 332 ITR 167 (Del) • CIT v. Cyber Park Development & Construction Ltd. (2020) • 121 taxmann.com 172 (Karn.) • CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma (2011) 335 ITR 83 (Delhi) • Anantpur Kalpana v. ITO, ITA No. 541/Bang/2021 for AY 2017-18 decided on 13.12.2021. (Bangalore-Trib.) • ITO v. Sri Tatiparti Satyanarayana, ITA No…

M/S Rithwik Rk Joint Venture vs. Pr. CIT, Allahabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 99/ALLD/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad26 Jul 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. Pawan Chakrapani, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Ramendra Kumar Vishwakarma, CIT DR
Section 263

…India Limited 203 ITR 108 4. CIT vs. Vikas Polymers 194 taxman 57 5. CIT vs. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel (P) Ltd.203 ITR 255 6. Sarvana Developers vs. CIT in ITA No. 620/Bang./2011 7. Malbar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT2 43 ITR 83 8. CIT vs. Max India Limited 295 ITR 282 9. CIT vs. D.G. Gopala Gowda 254 ITR 501 10. Linde AD, Linde Engineering Division VWP No.3917/2012 vs. DDIT 11. CIT vs. Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 444/2014 12. KCL AMRCL JV vs. ITO ITA No. 1409/H/16 6. On the other hand, the learned CIT DR has referred to the show cause notice issued by the Commissioner and submitted that the…

M/S. Rithwik Rk Joint Venture, Hyderabad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Allahabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 107/ALLD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad26 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. Pawan Chakrapani, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Ramendra Kumar Vishwakarma, CIT DR
Section 263

…India Limited 203 ITR 108 4. CIT vs. Vikas Polymers 194 taxman 57 5. CIT vs. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel (P) Ltd.203 ITR 255 6. Sarvana Developers vs. CIT in ITA No. 620/Bang./2011 7. Malbar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT2 43 ITR 83 8. CIT vs. Max India Limited 295 ITR 282 9. CIT vs. D.G. Gopala Gowda 254 ITR 501 10. Linde AD, Linde Engineering Division VWP No.3917/2012 vs. DDIT 11. CIT vs. Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 444/2014 12. KCL AMRCL JV vs. ITO ITA No. 1409/H/16 6. On the other hand, the learned CIT DR has referred to the show cause notice issued by the Commissioner and submitted that the…

Sh. Surender Meena, 36, Pratap Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 162/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Avdhesh Kumar (CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

…not necessary to value stock-in-trade at market price. Thus, the view taken by AO in accepting the book value of the stock-in- trade was a plausible and permissible view and therefore, the CIT could not exercise his powers u/s 263. • CIT Vs. Max India (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) Where two views are possible and the ITO has taken one view with which the CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, unless the view taken by the ITO is unsustainable in law—When the CIT passed the impugned order under sec. 263, two views were inherently possible on the word "p…

Sh. Narendar Kumar Agarwal, Jawali Bhawan, Station Road, Alwar vs. PCIT, Jaipur-1, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 133/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Avdhesh Kumar (CIT)
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 271FSection 50CSection 54F

…s not necessary to value stock-in-trade at market price. Thus, the view taken by AO in accepting the book value of the stock-in-trade was a plausible and permissible view and therefore, the CIT could not exercise his powers u/s 263. • CIT Vs. Max India (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) Where two views are possible and the ITO has taken one view with which the CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, unless the view taken by the ITO is unsustainable in law—When the CIT passed the impugned order under sec. 263, two views were inherently possible on the word "…

Sh Pravinchandra Walchand Shah, Nashik vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax -1, Nashik

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 296/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.296/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Pravinchandra Walchand The Pr.Cit, Nashik-1. Shah, Vs 19, Sumati Society, Sharanpur . Road, Shastri Nagar, Nashik – 422002. Pan: Acmps 2997L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Sardar Singh Meena – Ar Date Of Hearing 14/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y. 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nashik-1’S Order Dated 12.03.2021 Passed In Case No.Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2020- 21/1031448193(1), In Proceedings U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

…ravhinchandra Walchand Shah Vs. Pr.CIT, Nashik-1 [A] at the most it can be made on debatable issue. This proposition of law is supported by following decisions: 1. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs.M/s DLF Ltd 236/2010 7 384/2020 2. CIT Vs. Max India Ltd 295 ITR 282 (SC) The assesee also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs.Gabriel India Ltd 203 ITR 108 (Bom) and stated that in view of the facts of the case and ratio laid down by various decisions, the proposed revision u/s 263 is not justified. 5. In view of the above, submission/clarification on the part of the as…

B N Prasanna Kumar, Mandya vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore

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

ITA 466/BANG/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Srinivas T.Bidari, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 131Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 69A

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

Adibhuta Investmen Ts Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT-3, Mumbai

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

ITA 679/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2017-18
Section 14ASection 263Section 56(2)(viia)

…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 o…

Ramanamurthy Mathod Srinivasmurthy, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 281/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ITA No.281/Bang/2022 Ramanamurthy Mathod Srinivasmurthy, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ramanamurthy Mathod Srinivasmurthy T-306, III Floor, Suraj Plaza, Deputy Commissioner of 8th F Main, III Block, Jayanagar Vs. Income-tax Bangalore 560 011 Circle-2(1) Bangalore PAN NO : ADFPS2042E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Padamchand Khincha, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R. Date of Hearing : 11.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 11.07.2022 O R…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-1, Kolkata vs. Kartick Bose

ITAT/115/2021HC Calcutta08 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 263

…, were not disallowed by A.O. in original assessment and assessee had also not produced 2 necessary evidence of purchases before Commissioner in 263 proceedings and thus wrongly placing reliance on cases of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. 243 ITR 83 & Max India 295 ITR 282. ii) Whether the Learned Tribunal committed substantial error in law in holding that a view has already been taken by Assessing Officer on ‘Other Expenses’ by making 5% disallowance thus re-calculating Gross Profit, whereas commissioner’s finding, in 263 revisionary order, is related to ‘unexplained Bogus purchases’, was for disallowan…

M/S. Leopard Vitrified Pvt. Ltd., Village Matel, Dist. Morbi vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 83/RJT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, A.RFor Respondent: 12/05/2022
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ded that even if the Revenue disagreed with the legal view expressed in aforesaid judgments, it will be a case of two possible legal views in which case also the revision u/s. 263 was not permissible in view of Supreme Court judgment in case of Max India Ltd.(295 ITR 282) wherein the SC held that revision u/s. 263 is not permissible when two views are possible. 4.8 But, learned PCIT did not agree with the contention of the assessee and held that learned AO failed to make the vital inquiries as to whether the depositors/subscribers are genuine or verifiable? Whether the depositors/subscribers are creditworthy? Wh…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Cir 1(1), Pune vs. Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Pune

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

ITA 43/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.42 & 43/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 16-17 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. M/S.Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs Cluster C Wing-1, Eon Zone, Midc Kharadi, Knowledge Park, Plot No.1, Survey No.77, Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aabce 4323 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vishal Kalra & Shri Ss Tomar -Ar Revenue By Shri Sunil Kumar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S Twin Appeals For The Assessment Years 2015- 16 & 2016-17 Arise Against The Cit(A)-13, Pune’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 29.05.2020, Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/02, Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle- 1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/03 Respectively, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

Section 10Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 80ISection 9(1)(vi)

…ficer, the exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 by the Commissioner cannot be upheld. We place reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC). In order to invoke the provisions of section 263 of the Act, the order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Where the Commissioner does not agree with the view of the Assessing Officer the same cannot be basis/justification for invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act. Further, the opinion of the Commi…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Cir 1(1), Pune vs. Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Pune

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

ITA 42/PUN/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.42 & 43/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 16-17 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. M/S.Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs Cluster C Wing-1, Eon Zone, Midc Kharadi, Knowledge Park, Plot No.1, Survey No.77, Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aabce 4323 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vishal Kalra & Shri Ss Tomar -Ar Revenue By Shri Sunil Kumar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S Twin Appeals For The Assessment Years 2015- 16 & 2016-17 Arise Against The Cit(A)-13, Pune’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 29.05.2020, Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/02, Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle- 1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/03 Respectively, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

Section 10Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 80ISection 9(1)(vi)

…ficer, the exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 by the Commissioner cannot be upheld. We place reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC). In order to invoke the provisions of section 263 of the Act, the order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Where the Commissioner does not agree with the view of the Assessing Officer the same cannot be basis/justification for invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act. Further, the opinion of the Commi…

Diamond Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 208/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 208/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Diamond Beverages Private Limited Pr. Cit, Kolkata - 2 P-41, Taratala Road Vs Taratala Kolkata – 700 088 Pan : Aabcd3346C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : S. Agarwal, Aca Revenue By : Md. Ghayas Uddin, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/07/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajpal Yadav:

For Appellant: S. Agarwal, ACAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, CIT, D/R
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 37Section 80G

…ssue and the AO has adopted one view, then the same shall not be termed as erroneous only because CIT disagrees to the view, unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law. Reliance is also placed on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Max Indla Ltd (295 ITR 282) (SC), Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd V UOI 287 ITR 120, CIT Pankaj Dhirajlal Dhruve 305 ITR 322, CIT v Nirma Chemicals Works Pvt Ltd 309 ITR 67, Aryan Arcade Limited v CIT 84 Taxmann.com 293(Gujrat) Prayer: In view the above, and in view of the jurisdictional Kolkata ITAT ruling in the case of JMS Mining (supra), it is humbly prayed…

Sanjay Amrutrao Satav (HUF), Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 12(4), Pune

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

ITA 200/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.200/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sanjay Amrutrao Satav Vs. Ito, Ward- 12(4), Pune. (Huf), Amrut Palace Bungalow, Gat No.12 Bhavadi Road Wagholi, Near Bhairavnath Mandir, Taluka Haveli, Pune- 412207. Pan : Aayhs1085F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Pooja Rander Revenue By : Shri Sardar Singh Meena Date Of Hearing : 29.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2022 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- 4, Pune [‘The Pr.Cit’] Dated 31.03.2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

For Appellant: Smt. Pooja RanderFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena
Section 2Section 263Section 45Section 54Section 54B

…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 view, the assessment order cannot be termed as an “erroneous”. We may examine the 9 facts of the present case to find out whether the Assessing Officer had carried out…