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.

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 282)

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

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

ITA 61/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

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…

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

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

ITA 60/SRT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

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…

Hilton Group, Surat vs. PCIT(Central), Surat

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

ITA 59/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…

Hilton Group, Surat vs. PCIT, (Central), Surat

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

ITA 58/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

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…

Ramesh Kumar Gordhan Kathiriya, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Surat

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

ITA 192/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…

Ramesh Kumar Gordhan Kathiriya, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Surat

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

ITA 191/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

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…

Smt Shilpa Desai, Indore vs. The Pr CIT -1, Indore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal i

ITA 112/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Shilpa Desai, Indore Pan – Abzpd 4926 A … Appellant Vs. Pcit-I, Indore … Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54BSection 54ESection 54F

…iew is supported by the following judicial pronouncements: The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. 243 ITR 83, The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 CIT vs. Nirav Modi, [2016] 71 taxmann.com 272 (Bombay). Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Shri Prakash Bhagchand Khatri in Tax Appeal No. 177 with Tax Appeal No.178 of 2016 11. We, therefore, considering the facts of the case in totality and in light of the judicial decisions (supra) are of the view that Ld. Pr. CIT was not justified in…

Shri. Tarsem Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 157/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…th law. In the case of CIT vs. DLF Ltd. reported in 350 ITR 555, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, applying the mandate of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (reported in 243 ITR 83) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (reported in 295 ITR 282) has held that it is not a mere prejudicial to revenue act or a mere erroneous view that can be revised but there must ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 37 be an element of un-sustainability which clothes the Commissioner with the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. Also in the case of ITO vs. D.G. Housing Project Ltd rep…

Sh. Parshotam Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 154/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…th law. In the case of CIT vs. DLF Ltd. reported in 350 ITR 555, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, applying the mandate of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (reported in 243 ITR 83) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (reported in 295 ITR 282) has held that it is not a mere prejudicial to revenue act or a mere erroneous view that can be revised but there must ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 37 be an element of un-sustainability which clothes the Commissioner with the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. Also in the case of ITO vs. D.G. Housing Project Ltd rep…

Priyanka, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 152/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…th law. In the case of CIT vs. DLF Ltd. reported in 350 ITR 555, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, applying the mandate of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (reported in 243 ITR 83) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (reported in 295 ITR 282) has held that it is not a mere prejudicial to revenue act or a mere erroneous view that can be revised but there must ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 37 be an element of un-sustainability which clothes the Commissioner with the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. Also in the case of ITO vs. D.G. Housing Project Ltd rep…

Priya Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 151/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…th law. In the case of CIT vs. DLF Ltd. reported in 350 ITR 555, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, applying the mandate of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (reported in 243 ITR 83) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (reported in 295 ITR 282) has held that it is not a mere prejudicial to revenue act or a mere erroneous view that can be revised but there must ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 37 be an element of un-sustainability which clothes the Commissioner with the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. Also in the case of ITO vs. D.G. Housing Project Ltd rep…

M/S Pardeep Ispat(P) Ltd., Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 150/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…th law. In the case of CIT vs. DLF Ltd. reported in 350 ITR 555, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, applying the mandate of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (reported in 243 ITR 83) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (reported in 295 ITR 282) has held that it is not a mere prejudicial to revenue act or a mere erroneous view that can be revised but there must ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 37 be an element of un-sustainability which clothes the Commissioner with the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. Also in the case of ITO vs. D.G. Housing Project Ltd rep…

Shri Rajeev Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 149/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…th law. In the case of CIT vs. DLF Ltd. reported in 350 ITR 555, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, applying the mandate of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (reported in 243 ITR 83) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (reported in 295 ITR 282) has held that it is not a mere prejudicial to revenue act or a mere erroneous view that can be revised but there must ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 37 be an element of un-sustainability which clothes the Commissioner with the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. Also in the case of ITO vs. D.G. Housing Project Ltd rep…

M/S. Asaria Lalji Vador, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 559/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Blem/S. Asaria Lalji Vador V. Office Of Pcit – 27 C-21, Mahavir Jyot Room No. 401, 4Th Floor Opp. Odeon Shopping Centre Tower No. 6 Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai -400077 Vashi Railway Station Building Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Pan: Aabpv0149A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pradip Kapasi Department By : Ms. Shailja Rai

For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54E

…re listed as under. i. Metallizing Equipment v. Jt. CIT (2005) 96 TTJ 827 (Jodh) (Trib) ii. Laj Exports, 142 ITD 306 (Cha) iii. Patkai Coal Products (P.) Ltd. 356 ITR 258 (Gau). iv. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC) v. CIT v. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282 (SC) vi. Grasim Industries Ltd. V. CIT, 321 ITR 92 7 M/s. Asaria Lalji Vador vii. Sutures India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 431 ITR 432 (Kar.) viii. Delhi Tribunal Special Bench in the case of Salora International Ltd. v. Ad. CIT [2005] 2 SOT 705 (Delhi)(Trib.)] ix. PCIT vs. V. Dhana Reddy & Co. — [2018] 100 taxmann.com (SC) x. CIT vs. International Societ…

M/S. Perfect Krushi Market Yard Pvt.Ltd, Nashik vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax -2, Nashik

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

ITA 464/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.464/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Perfect Krushi Market Vs. Pr. Cit-2, Yard Pvt. Ltd., Nashik. Nilgiri Park, Near Yash Lawns, Nashik- 422003. Pan : Aagcp4760P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi Shri Naimish Sanjay Dixit Revenue By : Shri Kalika Singh Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07.01.2022 : 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- 2, Nashik [‘Pr.Cit’ For Short] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 17.01.2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Pcit Erred In Passing The Revision Order U/S 263 By Holding That The Asst. Order Passed U/S 143(3) In The Case Of The Assessee Company For A.Y.2015 - 16 Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & Thereby Directing The A.O. To Verify The Issue Regarding Exemption U/S 10(26Aab) De Novo. 2. The Learned Pcit Erred In Holding That The A.O. Has Not Applied The Proper Provisions Of Law While Verifying The Issue Of Allowing

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Kalika Singh

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 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). 8 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”. 9. Now, we may examine the facts of the present case. We find that the Assessing Officer carried out…

Kamal Vyas, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 17, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal stand allowed

ITA 303/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Amarjit Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 303/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year 2015-16) Vs. PCIT-17 Kamal Vyas F-2007/2008 Room No. 120 1st Floor, Oberoi Splendor Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 JVLR Road, Andheri-E to C-43, G Block, Mumbai-400 060. Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra East PAN : AABPV6454A Mumbai-400 051. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala Department by Shri Vinay Sinha Date of Hearing 16.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement 07.01.2022 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) : The assessee has filed this appeal against t…

Ashutosh Bhargava, Jaipur vs. Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 20/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271BSection 44ASection 54E

…ken by the A.O. is one of the possible views then learned CIT cannot assume jurisdiction. For this purpose reliance has been placed on the followings decisions: 1. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. PR. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) 2. PR. CIT VS MAX INDIA LTD.(2007)213 CTR 266(SC) It is further submitted that proceedings under s. 263 cannot be taken on the ground that the AO has not made sufficient enquiry. The learned PR. CIT can assume jurisdiction if there has been lack of enquiry. In the instant case, the enquiry has been made, though the enquiry may not be sufficient in the opinion of the learned PR. CIT. The reli…

K R Mahesha, Maddur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-3, Bangalore

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

ITA 365/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessmentyear:2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R

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…

Pawa Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- 7, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3829/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. Kipgen, CIT/DR

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

…ceding paragraphs it is held that the view taken by the learned Assessing Officer is certainly one of the several plausible views. In this context, it is worth the referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) wherein it was held that where two views are possible and the learned Assessing Officer had taken one such view, with which the learned 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 learned Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law. The decision of the…

Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt. Ltd, Jharsuguda vs. Principal CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 195/CTK/2019[204-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ, कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI MANISH BORAD, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं./ITA Nos.193/CTK/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/s Rawats-Balaji(JV), Vs Pr.CIT, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(RS), Dist : Jharsuguda PAN No. : AABAR 9061 J TAN No. : BBNR01647 C AND आयकर अपीऱ सं./ITA Nos.194/CTK/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/s SBEPL-GRIL(JV), Vs Pr.CIT, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(RS), Dist : Jharsuguda PAN No. : AAFAS 2639 R TAN No. : BBNS04348 B AND आयकर अपीऱ सं./ITA Nos.195/CTK/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Asse…

CIT v. Max India Ltd.

What is CIT v. Max India Ltd. authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Max India Ltd.

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

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

Hilton Group, Surat vs. PCIT(Central), Surat

Hilton Group, Surat vs. PCIT, (Central), Surat

Ramesh Kumar Gordhan Kathiriya, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Surat

Ramesh Kumar Gordhan Kathiriya, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Surat

Smt Shilpa Desai, Indore vs. The Pr CIT -1, Indore

Shri. Tarsem Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

Sh. Parshotam Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

Priyanka, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

Priya Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

M/S Pardeep Ispat(P) Ltd., Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

Shri Rajeev Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

M/S. Asaria Lalji Vador, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -7, Mumbai

M/S. Perfect Krushi Market Yard Pvt.Ltd, Nashik vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax -2, Nashik

Kamal Vyas, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 17, Mumbai

Ashutosh Bhargava, Jaipur vs. Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur

K R Mahesha, Maddur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-3, Bangalore

Pawa Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- 7, New Delhi

Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt. Ltd, Jharsuguda vs. Principal CIT, Sambalpur