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 367,359 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 Satyam Educational Health & Charitable Trust, Patna vs. Pr. CIT-Central, Patna

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

ITA 38/PAT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

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…

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 37/PAT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

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…

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 36/PAT/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

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…

Mrs Minakshi Shivkumar Bansal, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner Ofincome-Tax -6, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 345/PUN/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.345/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mrs. Minakshi Shivkumar Vs. Pr. Cit- 6, Bansal, Pune. Building No.A-3, Flat No.702, Oxford Village Wanworie, Pune- 411040. Pan : Ablpb1124E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue By Shri B. Koteswara Rao : Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2022 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- 6, Pune [‘Pcit’ For Short] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 11.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Has Erred In Holding That The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) Dated 30-10- 2015 Is Erroneous In As Much As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Hari Krishan
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

…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 which is required to be examined by us is whether the Assessing Officer carried ou…

Bharat Prtroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT Circle-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for parity of reasons

ITA 1602/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 1602/मुं/2020 ("न. व. 2015-16) आअसं. 1600/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2017-18) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Taxation Section, 4Th Floor, Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aaacb-2902-M ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -2, Room No.344, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/02/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi
Section 10(34)Section 236Section 263Section 32A

…nt order erroneous. In support of his contentions the ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions. (i) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. ACIT, 243 ITR 83(SC) (ii) CIT vs. Neerav Modi, 244 Taxman 194 (SC) (iii) CIT vs. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282(SC) The ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed that the Assessing Officer while giving effect to the order of the PCIT under section 263 of the Act has rejected the assessee’s claim of investment allowance under section 32AC of the Act. 4.3. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the PCIT has erred in holding that the ‘new asset’…

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, Circlr-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for parity of reasons

ITA 1600/MUM/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 1602/मुं/2020 ("न. व. 2015-16) आअसं. 1600/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2017-18) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Taxation Section, 4Th Floor, Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aaacb-2902-M ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -2, Room No.344, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/02/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Rahul Raman & B.K. Bagchi
Section 10(34)Section 236Section 263Section 32A

…nt order erroneous. In support of his contentions the ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions. (i) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. ACIT, 243 ITR 83(SC) (ii) CIT vs. Neerav Modi, 244 Taxman 194 (SC) (iii) CIT vs. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282(SC) The ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed that the Assessing Officer while giving effect to the order of the PCIT under section 263 of the Act has rejected the assessee’s claim of investment allowance under section 32AC of the Act. 4.3. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the PCIT has erred in holding that the ‘new asset’…

Mr. Kishore Nandlal Chabria, Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT-16, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1554/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1554/Mum/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16) बनधम/ Mr. Kishore Nandlal Pcit-16 Room No.437, 4Th Floor Chabria Vs. 51, 5Th Floor, Radheya Aayakar Bhavan, Building, 14Th Road, Khar Maharishi Karve Road, West, Mumbai-400052. Mumbai-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpc5779R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Sanjay Singh Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/11/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 07.07.2020 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2015-16 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-16 Has Invoked The Provisions U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - 2. 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-16, Mumbai Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act. 1961 Is Void Ab Initio Being Had In Law Based On Assumptions & Wrong Facts & Without Jurisdiction. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-16, Mumbai Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Assuming Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 When

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay SinghFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…ich a receipt is sought to be taxed as 15 A.Y. 2015-16 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 year 2005, though retrospective, did not render the order of the AO erroneous and prejudicial to the inte…

M/S. Tejas Networks Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 582/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

…er passed by A.O. is not erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue so as to invoke jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. He relied on the following judgements:- 1. Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83, 2. CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282, 3. CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 332 ITR 231, IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 30 of 34 4. CIT Vs. Arvinda Jewellers 259 ITR 502 5. CIT Vs. Saluja Exim Ltd. 329 ITR 603 34. Further, he submitted that the Principal CIT cannot substitute his own view…

M/S Tejats Networks Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 1674/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

…er passed by A.O. is not erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue so as to invoke jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. He relied on the following judgements:- 1. Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83, 2. CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282, 3. CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 332 ITR 231, IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 30 of 34 4. CIT Vs. Arvinda Jewellers 259 ITR 502 5. CIT Vs. Saluja Exim Ltd. 329 ITR 603 34. Further, he submitted that the Principal CIT cannot substitute his own view…

Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 694/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

…er passed by A.O. is not erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue so as to invoke jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. He relied on the following judgements:- 1. Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83, 2. CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282, 3. CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 332 ITR 231, IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 30 of 34 4. CIT Vs. Arvinda Jewellers 259 ITR 502 5. CIT Vs. Saluja Exim Ltd. 329 ITR 603 34. Further, he submitted that the Principal CIT cannot substitute his own view…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 621/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

…er passed by A.O. is not erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue so as to invoke jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. He relied on the following judgements:- 1. Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83, 2. CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282, 3. CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 332 ITR 231, IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 30 of 34 4. CIT Vs. Arvinda Jewellers 259 ITR 502 5. CIT Vs. Saluja Exim Ltd. 329 ITR 603 34. Further, he submitted that the Principal CIT cannot substitute his own view…

Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 468/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

…er passed by A.O. is not erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue so as to invoke jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. He relied on the following judgements:- 1. Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83, 2. CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282, 3. CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 332 ITR 231, IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 30 of 34 4. CIT Vs. Arvinda Jewellers 259 ITR 502 5. CIT Vs. Saluja Exim Ltd. 329 ITR 603 34. Further, he submitted that the Principal CIT cannot substitute his own view…

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 296/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

…er passed by A.O. is not erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue so as to invoke jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. He relied on the following judgements:- 1. Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83, 2. CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282, 3. CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 332 ITR 231, IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 30 of 34 4. CIT Vs. Arvinda Jewellers 259 ITR 502 5. CIT Vs. Saluja Exim Ltd. 329 ITR 603 34. Further, he submitted that the Principal CIT cannot substitute his own view…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 1119/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

…er passed by A.O. is not erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue so as to invoke jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. He relied on the following judgements:- 1. Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83, 2. CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282, 3. CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 332 ITR 231, IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 30 of 34 4. CIT Vs. Arvinda Jewellers 259 ITR 502 5. CIT Vs. Saluja Exim Ltd. 329 ITR 603 34. Further, he submitted that the Principal CIT cannot substitute his own view…

Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-Circle-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 942/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

…xpenditures were allowable. Hence, he has not made any disallowance. This is a legally permissible view. In any case, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) if there are two views possible and the A.O. has adopted one view, with which the ld. CIT ts not in agreement, the order cannot be said to be liable to be visited with the revisionary order by the Id. CIT. Accordingly, the order under 263 passed by the Ld. CIT is hereby quashed. Accordingly, we decide the issue in favour of the assessee.  P…

Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT, Circle-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 941/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

…xpenditures were allowable. Hence, he has not made any disallowance. This is a legally permissible view. In any case, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) if there are two views possible and the A.O. has adopted one view, with which the ld. CIT ts not in agreement, the order cannot be said to be liable to be visited with the revisionary order by the Id. CIT. Accordingly, the order under 263 passed by the Ld. CIT is hereby quashed. Accordingly, we decide the issue in favour of the assessee.  P…

Hotel Owner'S Credit Co-Operative Society, Mysuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mysuru

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

ITA 368/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Rampriya Das CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57(2)Section 80Section 80P

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Shri B.R.Baskaran, AM ITA No.368/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2015-2016 The Secretary, Hotel Owner’s The Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Mysuru. Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. v. No.2824, 1st Main, 8th Cross, Jayanagar, Mysuru – 570 014. PAN : AAAAH1132K. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Rampriya Das CA Respondent by : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 27.01.2022 Date of Hearing : 06.01.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, JM : This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against…

M/S Volvo India Pvt. Ltd., Hosakote vs. CIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 687/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Pavan Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…ner does not agree, the order passed by the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The principles laid down in the aforesaid decision were reiterated by the Supreme Court in 'CIT VS. MAX INDIA LTD.,' 295 ITR 282 (SC) and recently in 'ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. AND ORS. VS. STATE OF RA.JASTHAN AND ORS.', CIVIL APPEAL NO.2773/2020 DECIDED ON 17.07.2020. 9. In the_backdrop of the aforesaid well settled legal position, we may advert to the facts of the case. The relevant extract of the order passed by the Tribunal which reads as under: “The only issue that arises…

B.Sujatha, Coimbatore vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 2(5), Coimbatore

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

ITA 1557/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Manoj Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(3)

…one of the possible view and PCIT is unable to uphold how the order of AO is not sustainable in law. We noted from the case law 6 I.T.A. No.1557/Chny/2019 cited by ld.AR for the assessee of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd., [2007] 295 ITR 282, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd., [2004] 268 ITR 128, wherein the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has categorically held that once the AO has taken a possible view, CIT has no jurisdiction to interfere with the jurisdiction of AO. The ld.A…

Ashokbhai Narshibhai Patel, Surat vs. PCIT(Central), Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 62/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah & P. M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

…tion 263 of the Act speaks of revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. As per the said section and various judicial precedents including those of Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Malabal Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (243 ITR 83) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282), in order to invoke provisions of section 263 of the Act, twin conditions need to be satisfied exhaustively, viz. first, the order sought to be revised should be erroneous and secondly, it should be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Such occasions arise when the A.O. while passing assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A did not have cal…