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)

M/S- Sbep-Gril(Joint Venture), Jharsuguda vs. Principal CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 194/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

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…

M/S- Rawat Balaji (Joint Venture), Jharsuguda vs. Prilncipal, CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 193/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…

Manoj Kumar Das, Mayurbhanj vs. Principal CIT, Cuttack

In the result, Appeal of the assessee in ITANo

ITA 195/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Bivas Ranjan Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 69

…aw which results in a loss of revenue, it cannot be treated as erroneous order or prejudicial to the interest of revenue, unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is completely unsustainable and not acceptable under law. [CIT v. Max India Limited (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. C0IT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC)] 4. However, Ld. Pr. CIT was not satisfied with the submissions made by the assessee and proceeded to hold the assessment order dated 10.02.2016 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and gave direction to make modification in the assessment order to the followi…

Sanaa Ashiqali Raval, Mumbaui vs. Rp. CIT - 19, Mumbai

ITA 318/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansanaa Ashiqali Raval, Flat No.42, 2Nd Floor, Ajay Apartment, 25, Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026 Pan: Aihpr7427D ............ Appellant Vs. Pr. Cit-19 Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007 ............ Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Hero Rai, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Amrish Bedio, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…he AO has accepted the 5 ITA No. 318 Mum 2021- Sanaa Ashiqali Raval version of the assessee and found it to be plausible. For the above said purposes, the ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: 1. 395 ITR 1 (SC) CIT v Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex 2. 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT v Max India Ltd. 3. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT v Gabriel India Ltd. 4. 305 CTR 486 (Bom) CIT v Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. 5. 387 ITR 691 (Bom) CIT v Gera Development P Ltd. 6. 372 ITR 303 (Bom) CIT v Fine Jewellery India Ltd. 7. 301 ITR 407 (Bom) Idea Cellular Ltd. v DCIT 8. 323 ITR 206 (Bom) CIT v Development Credit Bank Ltd 7. The l…

M/S. Shree Shivalingeshwara Arecanut Traders, Shivamogga vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Bangalore

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

ITA 142/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore07 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT (DR OSD)

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 263

…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.” 9. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has also explained the scope of revision proceedings in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd (203 ITR 108) as under:- “9. From a reading of sub-section (1) of section 263, it is clear that the power of suo motu revision can be exercised by the Commissioner only if, on examination of the records of any proceed…

M/S. Shree Shivalingeshwara Arecanut Traders, Shivamogga vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Bangalore

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

ITA 141/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore07 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT (DR OSD)

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 263

…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.” 9. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has also explained the scope of revision proceedings in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd (203 ITR 108) as under:- “9. From a reading of sub-section (1) of section 263, it is clear that the power of suo motu revision can be exercised by the Commissioner only if, on examination of the records of any proceed…

M/S. Shree Shivalingeshwara Arecanut Traders, Shivamogga vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Bangalore

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

ITA 140/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore07 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT (DR OSD)

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 263

…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.” 9. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has also explained the scope of revision proceedings in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd (203 ITR 108) as under:- “9. From a reading of sub-section (1) of section 263, it is clear that the power of suo motu revision can be exercised by the Commissioner only if, on examination of the records of any proceed…

M/S. Doddanna Traders, Shivamogga vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Bangalore

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

ITA 139/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

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

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 263

…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.” 9. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has also explained the scope of revision proceedings in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd (203 ITR 108) as under:- “9. From a reading of sub-section (1) of section 263, it is clear that the power of suo motu revision can be exercised by the Commissioner only if, on examination of the records of any proceed…

M/S. Doddanna Traders, Shivamogga vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Bangalore

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

ITA 138/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

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

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 263

…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.” 9. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has also explained the scope of revision proceedings in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd (203 ITR 108) as under:- “9. From a reading of sub-section (1) of section 263, it is clear that the power of suo motu revision can be exercised by the Commissioner only if, on examination of the records of any proceed…

M/S. Doddanna Traders, Shivamogga vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Bangalore

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

ITA 137/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

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

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 263

…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.” 9. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has also explained the scope of revision proceedings in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd (203 ITR 108) as under:- “9. From a reading of sub-section (1) of section 263, it is clear that the power of suo motu revision can be exercised by the Commissioner only if, on examination of the records of any proceed…

M/S R.K. Jain Infra Projects P Ltd, Delhi vs. Pr Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-7, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 823/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, C. AFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen [CIT] – D. R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

…judicial pronouncements. 1. CIT vs AmritlalBhogilal& Co.34 ITR 130 (SC) 2. CIT vs Smt. AnnapoornammaChandershekhar 17 Com 120 (Kar H.C.) 3. Gabriel India Limited, 203 ITR 108 (Bombay H.C.) 4. CIT vs Nirav Modi,390 ITR 292 (Bombay H.C.) 5. CIT vs Max India Ltd.295 ITR 282 (SC) 6. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) 7.CIT vs Vodafone Essar South Ltd., 212 Taxman 184 (Del) (affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CC 9308/2013). 15. On the other hand, the Ld. DR strongly relied upon the order of the ld. PCIT and submitted that here there were 27 parties from whom assessee had done job work and trans…

Dell International Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 901/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Dell International Services Vs. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax India Pvt. Ltd., (Ltu), (For The Merged Entity Dell India Private Bengaluru. Limited), Diyashree Greens, Sy.Nos.12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A, Challaghatta Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru-560 071. Pan : Aaach 1925 Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Dell International Services Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Ltu), India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru. (For The Merged Entity Dell India Private Limited), Bengaluru-560 071. Pan : Aaacd 8893 L Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Counsel Respondent By : Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, Cit(Dr)(Osd)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2021

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…hrase i.e. "prejudicial to the interest of the revenue" has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. The said principal has been reiterated by Hon’ble Court in its subsequent judgment titled as CIT V/s Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282). The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of V. G. Krishnamurthy - [1985] 20 Taxman 65 has held that Section 263 can be invoked by the Commissioner only when he prima facie finds that the order made by the ITO was erroneous and was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.Both these factors must simultaneously exist. An order that is erro…

M/S Dell International Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bagalore

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 878/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Dell International Services Vs. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax India Pvt. Ltd., (Ltu), (For The Merged Entity Dell India Private Bengaluru. Limited), Diyashree Greens, Sy.Nos.12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A, Challaghatta Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru-560 071. Pan : Aaach 1925 Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Dell International Services Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Ltu), India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru. (For The Merged Entity Dell India Private Limited), Bengaluru-560 071. Pan : Aaacd 8893 L Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Counsel Respondent By : Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, Cit(Dr)(Osd)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2021

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…hrase i.e. "prejudicial to the interest of the revenue" has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. The said principal has been reiterated by Hon’ble Court in its subsequent judgment titled as CIT V/s Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282). The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of V. G. Krishnamurthy - [1985] 20 Taxman 65 has held that Section 263 can be invoked by the Commissioner only when he prima facie finds that the order made by the ITO was erroneous and was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.Both these factors must simultaneously exist. An order that is erro…

ACIT, Circle- 47(1), New Delhi vs. J. Kishore Exports, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1551/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Acit, Vs J.Kishore Exports, Circle-47(1), 558, Katra Ishwar Bhawan, New Delhi. Khari Baoli, New Delhi-110006. Pan-Aagfj9713M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Ashwani Kalia, Ca Respondent By Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 23.11.2021

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(2)

…egal position that there can be no revision on a debatable issue. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held so in Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC). This view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). In this case, the Hon’ble Summit Court held that when 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. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it can be…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Hisar vs. CIT, Hisar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1462/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. Najmi, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(2)Section 80

…of Revenue. The two conditions must be cumulatively satisfied. Reference, in this regard, may be made to the following decisions: • Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC)- Pg. 58- 62 CLC CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)] Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT: 263 ITR 437 (P&H) • CIT v. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR 1(SC) • Vimgi Investment (P) Limited 290 ITR 505 (Del) • CIT vs. Gabriel India Limited: 203 ITR 108 (Bom)- • In the light of the aforesaid settled legal position, re- assessment order, is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests…

Bee Pee Textiles, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT- 18, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 2485/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Bee Pee Textiles Vs. Pr. Cit – 18, 384-F, Room No. 4,5 &6 Room No. 601, 6Th Dhabholkar, Wadi, Floor, Earnest House, Kalbadevi, Mumbai – Nariman Point, 4000024. Mumbai – 400021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaffb3061R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Mukesh Advani. Ar Respondent By : Shri Rahul Raman. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 15.11.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax– 18, Mumbai Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Advani. ARFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40Section 40b

…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. Bee Pee Textiles, Mumbai CIT-15 Kol. Page 12 year 200…

M/S Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 23/JPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (Pr.CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

…and the AO has taken one view, assessment order cannot be treated as erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. For this reliance is placed on the following cases:- • CIT Vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (2017) 395 ITR 1 (SC) • CIT Vs. Max India 295 ITR 282 (SC) • Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) 9. It was further submitted that the issue as to whether the PCIT u/s 263 can held the order of AO erroneous where he has allowed the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) in respect of interest received on investment 6 M/s Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd., Jaipur Vs. PCIT, Jaipur…

The Jangid Brajman Co-Operative Credit and Saving Society Ltd., Ajmer vs. Pr.CIT, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 13/JPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT) a

Section 143(2)Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

…AO has taken one view, assessment order cannot be treated as erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In support, reliance was placed on the following decisions:- • CIT Vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (2017) 395 ITR 1 (SC) • CIT Vs. Max India 295 ITR 282 (SC) • Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) 7. It was submitted that in the present case, the Ld. PCIT has referred to the decision of Supreme Court in case of Totgars Cooperative Sale Society Ltd. Vs. ITO 322 ITR 283 but this decision is not applicable on the assessee and has been distinguished by the Ld. CIT(A) in assessee’s own…

Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 37/JPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

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

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…n 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 rel…

Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Palasana vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 36/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

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

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…n 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 rel…

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.

M/S- Sbep-Gril(Joint Venture), Jharsuguda vs. Principal CIT, Sambalpur

M/S- Rawat Balaji (Joint Venture), Jharsuguda vs. Prilncipal, CIT, Sambalpur

Manoj Kumar Das, Mayurbhanj vs. Principal CIT, Cuttack

Sanaa Ashiqali Raval, Mumbaui vs. Rp. CIT - 19, Mumbai

M/S. Shree Shivalingeshwara Arecanut Traders, Shivamogga vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Bangalore

M/S. Shree Shivalingeshwara Arecanut Traders, Shivamogga vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Bangalore

M/S. Shree Shivalingeshwara Arecanut Traders, Shivamogga vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Bangalore

M/S. Doddanna Traders, Shivamogga vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Bangalore

M/S. Doddanna Traders, Shivamogga vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Bangalore

M/S. Doddanna Traders, Shivamogga vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Bangalore

M/S R.K. Jain Infra Projects P Ltd, Delhi vs. Pr Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-7, Delhi

Dell International Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

M/S Dell International Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bagalore

ACIT, Circle- 47(1), New Delhi vs. J. Kishore Exports, New Delhi

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Hisar vs. CIT, Hisar

Bee Pee Textiles, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT- 18, Mumbai

M/S Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2, Jaipur

The Jangid Brajman Co-Operative Credit and Saving Society Ltd., Ajmer vs. Pr.CIT, Ajmer

Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Palasana vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur