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 367,282 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.

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

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

ITA 35/JPR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

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…

Satyam Textile Park, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 91/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Oct 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263Section 271DSection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.90 & 91/SRT/2021 (AY 2016-17 & 2017-18) (Hearing in Virtual Court) Satyam Textile Park, The Principal Block No.430,Moje Hathoda, Commissioner of Income Vs TA-Magrol, Surat – 394380. Tax (Central), Surat. PAN: ACXFS 1576 L Assessee / appellant Revenue /respondent Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah – CA Revenue by Shri Ritesh Mishra – CIT-DR Date of hearing 15.09.2021 Date of pronouncement 25.10.2021 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMB…

Satyam Textile Park, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 90/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263Section 271DSection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.90 & 91/SRT/2021 (AY 2016-17 & 2017-18) (Hearing in Virtual Court) Satyam Textile Park, The Principal Block No.430,Moje Hathoda, Commissioner of Income Vs TA-Magrol, Surat – 394380. Tax (Central), Surat. PAN: ACXFS 1576 L Assessee / appellant Revenue /respondent Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah – CA Revenue by Shri Ritesh Mishra – CIT-DR Date of hearing 15.09.2021 Date of pronouncement 25.10.2021 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMB…

Antariksh Realtors P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-12, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 1626/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Saktijit Dey ()

Section 143(3)Section 263

…1 ITA 1626/Mum/2020 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR (VICE PRESIDENT) AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.A. No.1626/Mum/2020 (Assessment year 2015-16) Antariksh Realtors Private Limited vs The Income-tax Officer-12(1)(2), 23, 5th Floor, Dheeraj Plaza, Hill Road Mumbai Bandra (West), Mumbai-400 050 PAN : AAKCS5379G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Shreyash Shah (AR) & Shri Kunal Shah & Shri Ramesh Vora (AR) Respondent by Shri Rajeev Harit [CIT(DR)] Date of hearing 27-07-2021 Date of pronouncement 22-10-2021 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey (JM) Captioned…

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 94/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.92, 93 & 94/SRT/2021 A.Y: 2014-15 to 2016-17 (Hearing in Virtual Court) M/s.Amrut Sarovar, The Principal Commissioner Block No. 514-515, of Income Tax – Central, Vs. Opposite Girnar Hotel, Surat. At & PO Kather, Taluka-Kamrej, Surat. PAN: ABGFA 2065 C Applicant /assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah – CA Revenue by Shri Ritesh Mishra – CIT-DR Date of hearing 15.09.2021 Date of pronouncement 21.10.2021 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act…

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 93/SRT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.92, 93 & 94/SRT/2021 A.Y: 2014-15 to 2016-17 (Hearing in Virtual Court) M/s.Amrut Sarovar, The Principal Commissioner Block No. 514-515, of Income Tax – Central, Vs. Opposite Girnar Hotel, Surat. At & PO Kather, Taluka-Kamrej, Surat. PAN: ABGFA 2065 C Applicant /assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah – CA Revenue by Shri Ritesh Mishra – CIT-DR Date of hearing 15.09.2021 Date of pronouncement 21.10.2021 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act…

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 92/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.92, 93 & 94/SRT/2021 A.Y: 2014-15 to 2016-17 (Hearing in Virtual Court) M/s.Amrut Sarovar, The Principal Commissioner Block No. 514-515, of Income Tax – Central, Vs. Opposite Girnar Hotel, Surat. At & PO Kather, Taluka-Kamrej, Surat. PAN: ABGFA 2065 C Applicant /assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah – CA Revenue by Shri Ritesh Mishra – CIT-DR Date of hearing 15.09.2021 Date of pronouncement 21.10.2021 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act…

Shree Ambey Forging Privat Limited, Panaji vs. ITO, Ward - (4), Panaji

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 389/PAN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Oct 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Shrinivas Nayak, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 92ASection 92C

…powers u/s 263 to form a different opinion or take a divergent view. These principles are well settled by the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Limited vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83; and CIT vs. Max India Limited (2007) 295 ITR 282 and reiterated by various courts. Now, in the light of the settled principles we have to see, whether the Ld. CIT was correct in law and in facts in cancelling the assessment order on the points raised by him in impugned order. As discussed above the issues raised by the Ld. CIT for canceling the assessment order and passing a fresh assessment ar…

Scorpio Iron Ltd, Panaji vs. ITO, Ward - 1(4), Panaji

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 388/PAN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Oct 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Shrinivas Nayak, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 92ASection 92C

…powers u/s 263 to form a different opinion or take a divergent view. These principles are well settled by the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Limited vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83; and CIT vs. Max India Limited (2007) 295 ITR 282 and reiterated by various courts. Now, in the light of the settled principles we have to see, whether the Ld. CIT was correct in law and in facts in cancelling the assessment order on the points raised by him in impugned order. As discussed above the issues raised by the Ld. CIT for canceling the assessment order and passing a fresh assessment ar…

Noor Resorts Private Limited, Kullu vs. Pr.CIT, Shimla

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 309/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Oct 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Mohit Guglani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…O. was one of the possible view the assessment order dated 16/09/2016 passed by him cannot be considered to be erroneous. For the aforesaid view, we are fortified by the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282 wherein it has been held that as under: “ The phrase “prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue” in section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has to be read in conjunction with the expression “erroneous” order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudic…

Reliance Life Sciences P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-8, Mumbai

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 533/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.533/Mum/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.534/Mum/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Reliance Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. Pr. Cit - 8 Dhirubhai Ambani Life Sciences Centre, Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, बिाम/ R-282, Ttc Area Of Midc Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Thane Belapur Road, Rabale, Navi Mumbai-400 701 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcr-7594-L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Nimesh Vora-Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Anand Mohan-Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 07/09/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 05/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 As Per The Provisions Of Section 263 Of Income Tax Act, 1961, The Revenue Authorities Namely Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax / Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Vested With The Supervisory Powers Of Suo-Moto Revision Of Any Order Passed By The Assessing Officer [Ao]. For The Said Purpose, The Appropriate Authority May Call For & Examine

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 263

…ted as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. 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). Similar principal has been followed by jurisdictional High Court in Grasim Industries Ltd. V/s CIT (321 ITR 92). 1.2 The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s Vikas Polymers (supra), further observed that as regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993 203 ITR 108 (Bomba…

M/S Vimla Infrastructure (India) Private Limited, Raipur vs. Pr. Commissioner of Incometax-1, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 18/RPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 18/Rpr/2021) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80GSection 80I

…application of mind, assumption of jurisdiction by PCIT is not valid having regard to the scope of revisional proceedings under s.263 of the Act as echoed in; (a) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) (b) CIT Vs. Max India Limited (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) (c) CIT Vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (201 7) 395 ITR 1 (SC) (d) CIT Vs. Gabrial India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom.HC) 10.7 It is next asserted that the instant case is not a case of lack of enquiry. The allegation of the PCIT is towards inadequacy in proper enquiry. The PCIT despite having direct and clinching evidence has not carri…

Rameshwar Prasad Shringi, Gumanpura vs. Pr.CIT, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 10/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (Pr. CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ed as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, unless the view taken by the AO is totally unsustainable in law. Kindly refer Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v/s CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC). 1.2 Also kindly refer CIT v/s Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) wherein it is held that: "The phrase "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" in S. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has to be read in conjunction with the expression "erroneous" order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the inte…

Annu Agrotech Private Limited, Kota vs. Pr.CIT, Udiaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 09/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Cuke Annu Agrotech Private Limited, Pr.Cit, S-47/48, S-47/48, Vs. Udaipur. Commercial Shops, Ipia 324005, Rajasthan, India. Pan No.: Aagca 5903 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Mahendra Gargieya(Adv.) & Shri Devang Gargieya (Itp) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 27/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15 /09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya(Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…ed as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, unless the view taken by the AO is totally unsustainable in law. Kindly refer Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v/s CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC). 1.2 Also kindly refer CIT v/s Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) wherein it is held that: Ratio of these cases fully apply on the facts of the present case in principle. 2. Due application of mind: 2.1 It is submitted that the AO had raised very specific and directly relevant queries/called for explanation and evidences w.r.t. the identities and creditworthiness genuineness of the receipts towards the…

Naina Saraf, Jaipur vs. Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 271/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 271/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Cuke Naina Saraf, Pr.Cit-2, Vs. B-93, Surya Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Aevps 4665 N Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 271/JP/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 cuke Naina Saraf, Pr.CIT-2, Vs. B-93, Surya Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur. Jaipur. PAN No.: AEVPS 4665 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 18/06/2021 mn?kks"…

P I Industries Limited, Udaipur vs. Pr. CIT, Udaipur

ITA 4/JODH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur08 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year:2016-17 Pi Industries Limited, Vs. Pr.Cit, Udaisagar Road, Udaipur. Udaipur-313001. Pan No. Aabcp 2183 M

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 32ASection 35(1)(iv)Section 80ISection 92C

…tion 263 and submits that in absence of the twin conditions being satisfied, the revision was not justified. a. C I T-1 Jaipur vs M/S Green Triveni Developer on 24 October, 2017(Rajasthan) D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 114 / 2015. b. CIT v. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) c. CIT v. Rajiv Arora (DBITA 283/2010 dated 28.08.2017 (Rajasthan) d. CIT v. Deepak Real Estate Developers (India) Pvt. Ltd. (DBITA 581/2011 dated 03.03.2014 Rajasthan High Court) e. CIT v. Reliance Communication Ltd. (2016) 76 Taxmann.com 226 (SC), f. CIT vs. Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd. (2008) 303 ITR 353 g. CIT vs. PANKAJ DHIRAJLAL DHRUVE…

Secure Meters Limited, Udaipur vs. Pr. CIT, Udaipur

ITA 2/JODH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year:2016-17 Secure Meters Limited, Vs. Pr.Cit, E-Class, Pratap Nagar Udaipur. Industrial Area, Udaipur-313001. Pan No. Aaccs 8785 M

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 43ASection 92C

…tion 263 and submits that in absence of the twin conditions being satisfied, the revision was not justified. a. C I T-1 Jaipur vs M/S Green Triveni Developer on 24 October, 2017(Rajasthan) D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 114 / 2015. b. CIT v. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) c. CIT v. Rajiv Arora (DBITA 283/2010 dated 28.08.2017 (Rajasthan) d. CIT v. Deepak Real Estate Developers (India) Pvt. Ltd. (DBITA 581/2011 dated 03.03.2014 Rajasthan High Court) e. CIT v. Reliance Communication Ltd. (2016) 76 Taxmann.com 226 (SC), f. CIT vs. Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd. (2008) 303 ITR 353 g. CIT vs. PANKAJ DHIRAJLAL DHRUVE…

Reliance Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT (PCIT)-3, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 578/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 263

…ted as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. 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). Similar principal has been followed by jurisdictional High Court in Grasim Industries Ltd. V/s CIT (321 ITR 92). 1.2 The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s Vikas Polymers (supra), further observed that as regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993 203 ITR 108 (Bombay…

Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Aug 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (Pr.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

…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) In view of above, order passed by Ld. CIT u/s 263 is illegal & bad in law and the same be quashed. 10. Per contra, the ld PCIT/DR relied on the order passed by the ld PCIT and our reference was drawn to the relevant findings which read as under: 7 Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd.…

The N M Petit Charity Fund, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (Exem.) 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1918/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Us Challenging The Validity Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S.263 Of The Act By The Ld. Pcit Both On Technical Ground As Well As On Merits.

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

…icial to the interest of the revenue; should be cumulatively satisfied. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decisions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd., reported in 243 ITR 83 (SC) and Max India Ltd., reported in 295 ITR 282 (SC). Accordingly, we hold that revision jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act invoked by the ld. PCIT on the alleged applicability of capital gains on transfer of two plots of land, is devoid of merit and against the provisions of the Act and decided judicial precedents thereon. 3.17. In view of our aforesaid detailed observations on both the issues…