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.

Spml Infra Limited, New Delhi vs. PCIT-1, Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 510/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Manish Borad)

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA [Virtual Court] (Before Sri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member & Sri Manish Borad, Accountant Member) I.T.A. No.: 510/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 SPML Infra Limited.................................................................Appellant [PAN: AADCS 2469 K] Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kolkata.........................Respondent Appearances by: Sh. S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv. and Ms. Mita Rizvi, appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Md. Ghayas Uddin, CIT(D/R), appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : February 15th, 2022 Date…

M/S Rahul Raj Estates Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Central - 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3523/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Reepal TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar

Section 115JSection 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 263(1)

…possible views after considering the entire facts of the case and due application of find, the same cannot be replaced only because the CIT has different opinion in the matter- a) CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex 395 ITR I (SC) b) CIT v. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC) c) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) d) CIT vs. Greenworld Corporation, 314 ITR 81 (SC) 8. On the other hand, Ld.DR relied on the orders passed by the Ld.Pr.CIT. (A.Y: 2012-13 & 2014-15) M/s. RahulRaj Estates Pvt. Ltd., 9. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observed that in search pro…

M/S Rahul Raj Estates Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Central - 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3522/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Reepal TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar

Section 115JSection 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 263(1)

Hubtown Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT (Central)-4, Mumbai

ITA 696/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M.Balaganeshआअसं.696/मुं/2021(िन.व. 2015-16) Hubtown Limited, Cts No. 469A, Hubtown Seasons, 1, R.C. Marg, Chembur (East), Mumbai-400071. Pan: Aaaca6101D ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Pcit (Central), Room No. 663, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Vijay Mehta "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Purushottam Tripuri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 01/02/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26/04/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-4, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Pcit’] Dated 30.03.2021 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Sh. Purushottam Tripuri, CIT-DR

Section 263Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई पीठ “एच” मुंबई "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी एम.बालागनेश, लेखा सद" के सम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं.696/मुं/2021(िन.व. 2015-16) Hubtown Limited, CTS No. 469A, Hubtown Seasons, 1, R.C. Marg, Chembur (East), Mumbai-400071. PAN: AAACA6101D ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. PCIT (Central), Room No. 663, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant by : Sh. Vijay Mehta "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent by : Sh. Purushot…

Smt. Jyoti Ashok Kotecha vs. C.I.T.-(Central), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 258/NAG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Chadraker

Section 127Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 292B

…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 possible views, the assessment order cannot be termed as an “erroneous”. 12. Now, we may examine the facts of the present case. During the course of assessment proceedings u/s 1…

Smt. Meena Dilip Kotecha vs. C.I.T.-(Central), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 257/NAG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Chadraker

Section 127Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 292B

Tmf Holding Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -1, Mumbai

ITA 1628/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bletmf Holdings Ltd., V. Pr.Cit – 1 {Formerly Known As Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,} 3Rd Floor, Room No. 330 10Th Floor, 106 A & B Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Maker Chamber-Iii Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Aacct4644A (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Nikhil Tiwari Assessee By : Department By : Shri S.N. Kabra

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 47

…s also placed on the following decisions:- • Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd vs. CIT (supra) (Refer page 156 to 160 of the legal paper book) • CIT vs Amitabh Bachchan (2016) (384 ITR 200)(SC) (Refer page 167 to 177 of the legal paper book) • CIT vs. Max India Ltd (295 ITR 282) (SC) (Refer page 178 to 180 of the legal paper book). • CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd (203 ITR 108) (Born) (Refer page 161 to 166 of the legal paper book) • Tata Motors Ltd for AY 2013-14 (ITA No. 3424/Mum/2019) dated 6 March 2020 (Refer Page 181-193 of legal paper book) • Nirav Modi (390 ITR 292) (Bom) 18. Therefore, it is submitted that the learne…

Priya Kishor Jagtiani, Nashik vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Nashik

In the result, all the above three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1276/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri C. H. Naniwadeker

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 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”. Therefore, the issue i.e. required to be examined by us is whether or not the Assessing Officer carried…

Priya Kishor Jagtiani, Nashik vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Nashik

In the result, all the above three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1275/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri C. H. Naniwadeker

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 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”. Therefore, the issue i.e. required to be examined by us is whether or not the Assessing Officer carried…

Priya Kishor Jagtiani, Nashik vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Nashik

In the result, all the above three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1274/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri C. H. Naniwadeker

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 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”. Therefore, the issue i.e. required to be examined by us is whether or not the Assessing Officer carried…

Sach Electro Mech Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Pr. CIT-2, Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 392/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

Section 145ASection 14ASection 254(1)Section 263Section 40A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Hearing in Virtual Court) Sach Electro Mech Private Limited Pr. Commissioner of Income C/2, Maheshwari Apartment, Tax-2, Vs. Nanpura, Timaliawad, Room No. 227, 2nd Floor, Surat. Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, PAN : AAICS 8963 M Surat-395001 APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT Appellant by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Respondent by Shri H. P. Meena, CIT-DR Date of hearing 21/01/2022 Date of pronouncement 06/04/2022 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Thi…

B.Gupteswar Patra, Nabarangpur vs. Principal CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 64/CTK/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack06 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri N. Anand RaoFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 44ASection 69A

…nue. Ld counsel relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 243 ITR 81 (SC) and this proposition has also been reiterated in the following judgments: i) CIT vs Maxmedia ltd (2008) 295 ITR 282 ii) Ultratech Cement Ltd vs State of Rajasthan (2020) 117 Taxmann.com 807 (SC) iii) CIT vs Nirav Modi (2016) 71 Taxmann./com 272 (Bom) 5. Ld counsel further submitted that the AO has conducted sufficient enquiry as per the requirements of Explanation 2(a) of Section 263 of the Act, hence, invocation of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act…

Karan Polymers Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated herein above

ITA 270/KOL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Aby T. Varkey & Sri Manish Borad)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA (Before Sri Aby T. Varkey, Judicial Member & Sri Manish Borad, Accountant Member) I.T.A. No.: 270/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Karan Polymers Pvt. Ltd.........................................................Appellant [PAN: AABCK 3114 F] Vs. Pr. CIT, Kolkata-2................................................................Respondent Appearances by: Sh. S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv. and Ms. Puja Somani, appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Md. Ghayas Uddin, CIT (D/R), appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : February 28th, 2022 Dat…

Sheila Gopal Foundation, Mumbai vs. The CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 986/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 986/मुं/2021(िन.व.2016-17) Sheila Gopal Foundation Vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax Construction House-B, 2Nd Floor (Exemptions), Room No.617, 6Th Floor, 623, Linking Road, Khar (West) Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Parel, Mumbai-400 052 Mumbai-400 052 Pan : Aabts5672B Appellant Respondent

Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…merely because he does not agree with the view of the Assessing Officer. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Malabar Industries Ltd vs CIT 243 ITR 83(SC) as well as in case of CIT vs Max India Ltd 295 ITR 282 (SC) and submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that on every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of Assessing Officer, cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. If Assessing Officer has adopted one of the course permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue or where two views are possible and A…

Facit Sales(P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Kol-5, Kolkata

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

ITA 406/KOL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Manish Borad)

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

…nce was placed on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. J.L. Morrison (India) Ltd. (2004) 366 ITR 593 (Cal). ii) CIT vs. R.K. Construction (2009) 313 ITR 65 (Guj). iii) CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma (2010) 194 Taxman 504 (Del). iv) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). v) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom). vi) CIT vs. Deepak Mittal, 324 ITR 311 (P&H). vii) Smt. Juthika Kar vs. ITO [ITA No.1128/Kol/2009, order dated 16.05.2012]. 8 I.T.A. No.: 406/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Facit Sales Private Limited. 7. It was also submitted that no independent enquiry has been made by ld…

Charhil Kumar Sahoo, Bhubaneswar vs. Pr.CIT, Bhubaneswar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 14/CTK/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, CA

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271A

…ce of books of accounts is a permissible view under the law, which cannot be held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. To support his contentions, ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC). Accordingly, ld. AR submitted that the revisionary order passed u/s.263 of the Act by the Pr.CIT deserves to be quashed. 7. Defending to the arguments of ld. AR of the assessee, ld. CIT-DR relied on the order of Pr.CIT and submitted that the Pr.CIT has rightly set aside the assessment order for proper verification. 8. We have heard the riva…

M/S. Bhagabati Build & Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. Principal CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/CTK/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. M/S. Bhagbati Bhagbati Build Build & & Vs. Pr. Cit,-1, Bhubaneswar 1, Bhubaneswar Constructions Pvt Ltd., At: Constructions Pvt Ltd., At: Madhupatna, Po: Link Road, Ps: Madhupatna, Po: Link Road, Ps: Madhupatna, Cuttack Madhupatna, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aaecb 1801 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena Sandeep Kumar Jena, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 8/3/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29 / /3/2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg G, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Kumar JenaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 44A

…not erroneous, therefore before invoking revision jurisdiction the commissioner should satisfy himself of the above twin conditions. Please see Malabar Industrial Co. Limited v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC). Further in the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) "it was held that the phrase prejudicial to the interests of the under section 263 has to be read in conjunction with the expression erroneous order passed by the assessing Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the assessing officer cannot be treated as prejudicial interests of the revenue. For example, when an Income Tax Off…

R Govinde Gowda, Mandya vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-3, Bangalore

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

ITA 366/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

…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.” In the instant case, there are two views possible with regard to estimation of income from civil contract works and the assessing officer has taken a plausible view. Accordingly, we are of the view that the revision order passed by Ld. PCIT on this issue cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we set aside his order in directing the A.O. to do de-no…

Siddappa B T, Mandya vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-3, Bangalore

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

ITA 363/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

…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.” In the instant case, there are two views possible with regard to estimation of income from civil contract works and the assessing officer has taken a plausible view. Accordingly, we are of the view that the revision order passed by Ld. PCIT on this issue cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we set aside his order in directing the A.O. to do de-no…

M/S Satyam Educational Health & Charitable Trust, Patna vs. Pr. CIT-Central, Patna

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 39/PAT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…s the view taken by the AO is not sustainable in law or not in accordance with law or contrary to the facts , the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act cannot be resorted to. In defense of this arguments, the ld A.R relied on the decision of CIT vs. Maxx India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC). The ld. Counsel also argued that where the AO has conducted the proper enquiries by calling upon the assessee to explain the particular point and the assessee has duly responded the same and furnished all the required information/details and the AO has framed the assessment after considering the same, even then the assessment order cannot b…