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 366,470 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.

Vivek Nathuram Gavhane, Pune vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Pune

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

ITA 849/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.849/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 69C

…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 view, the assessment order cannot be termed as an “erroneous”. We may examine the facts of the present case to find out whether the Assessing Officer had carried out n…

Akashdeep Cloth Centre, Kannad vs. Principal CIT, Nashik

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 959/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: S/Shri Shubham N. Rathi and Ashutosh DhootFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69Section 69B

…Rs.1,42,715/- to the business income of the assessee for the year under consideration. 16. In this regard, decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central) Ludhiana v. Max India Limited (2007) 15 SCC 401/[2008] 166 Tax 188/295 ITR 282 (SC) may be noticed herein profitably in which their Lordships have held that every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. When the Income Tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue or where two vie…

Manmandir Cloth Centre, Kannad vs. PCIT, Nashik

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1012/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: S/Shri Shubham N. Rathi and Ashutosh DhootFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69Section 69B

…Rs.1,42,715/- to the business income of the assessee for the year under consideration. 16. In this regard, decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central) Ludhiana v. Max India Limited (2007) 15 SCC 401/[2008] 166 Tax 188/295 ITR 282 (SC) may be noticed herein profitably in which their Lordships have held that every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. When the Income Tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue or where two vie…

Sbi Life Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Mumbai

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

ITA 3364/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt. Renu Jauhri

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3364/MUM/2025 (AY: 2019-20) (Physical hearing) SBI Life Insurance Company Limited Pr. CIT -1, Mumbai Natraj 5th Floor, M.V. Road and 330, 3rd Floor, AayakarBhavan, Vs Western Exp. Highway J., Andheri M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400020. East, S.O. Mumbai-400069. [PAN: AAFCS2530P] Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee by Shri Farooq Irani Senior Advocate with Ms AmrutaLele Advocate Revenue by ShriArunKantiDatta, CIT-DR Date of hearing 22.09.2025 Date of pronouncement…

Sbi Life Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Tax -1, Mumbai

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

ITA 3363/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt. Renu Jauhri

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3364/MUM/2025 (AY: 2019-20) (Physical hearing) SBI Life Insurance Company Limited Pr. CIT -1, Mumbai Natraj 5th Floor, M.V. Road and 330, 3rd Floor, AayakarBhavan, Vs Western Exp. Highway J., Andheri M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400020. East, S.O. Mumbai-400069. [PAN: AAFCS2530P] Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee by Shri Farooq Irani Senior Advocate with Ms AmrutaLele Advocate Revenue by ShriArunKantiDatta, CIT-DR Date of hearing 22.09.2025 Date of pronouncement…

Ramaben Maganlal Zalaria, Rajkot vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Rajkot

ITA 276/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 274 To 276/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14 To 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Ramaben Maganlal Zalaria, Vs. The Pcit-1, Umakant Udhyognagar, Near Rajkot 360001 Gandhiya Estate, Mavdi Plot, Rajkot-360004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacpz0156C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 263

…O., which is not permissible. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ranka Jewellers vs. Addl. CIT (328 ITR 148) relying on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd. [(2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC)], has held that once the issue was considered by the A.O., the remedy of the revenue could not lie in invoking of the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act. Therefore, the order of the Ld. C.I.T. was definitely outside the purview of section 263 of the Act. As noted above, the exercise aimed at ascertaining the correct income of the assessee has…

Ramaben Maganlal Zalaria, Rajkot vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Rajkot

ITA 275/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 274 To 276/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14 To 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Ramaben Maganlal Zalaria, Vs. The Pcit-1, Umakant Udhyognagar, Near Rajkot 360001 Gandhiya Estate, Mavdi Plot, Rajkot-360004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacpz0156C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 263

…O., which is not permissible. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ranka Jewellers vs. Addl. CIT (328 ITR 148) relying on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd. [(2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC)], has held that once the issue was considered by the A.O., the remedy of the revenue could not lie in invoking of the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act. Therefore, the order of the Ld. C.I.T. was definitely outside the purview of section 263 of the Act. As noted above, the exercise aimed at ascertaining the correct income of the assessee has…

Ramaben Maganlal Zalaria, Rajkot vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Rajkot

ITA 274/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 274 To 276/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14 To 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Ramaben Maganlal Zalaria, Vs. The Pcit-1, Umakant Udhyognagar, Near Rajkot 360001 Gandhiya Estate, Mavdi Plot, Rajkot-360004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacpz0156C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 263

…O., which is not permissible. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ranka Jewellers vs. Addl. CIT (328 ITR 148) relying on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd. [(2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC)], has held that once the issue was considered by the A.O., the remedy of the revenue could not lie in invoking of the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act. Therefore, the order of the Ld. C.I.T. was definitely outside the purview of section 263 of the Act. As noted above, the exercise aimed at ascertaining the correct income of the assessee has…

Janta Land Promoters Pvt Ltd, Mohali vs. The Prinicipal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh-1, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 618/CHANDI/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Oct 2025AY 2020-2021
For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Bhalla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 263Section 68

…rder of the AO is erroneous and has caused a prejudice to the interests of the Revenue. If any single limb of these conditions is absent, then no action u/s 263 can be taken. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2008] 166 Taxman 188/295 ITR 282 (SC) has reiterated this position of law that on fulfilment of twin conditions, i.e. error committed by the AO which has caused prejudice to the interests of the revenue, only then the order u/s 263 can be passed. This aspect can always be examined by an Appellate Authority against an order passed u/s 263. The position of law was also explained b…

Gmm Pfaulder Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 839/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.839/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Gmm Pfaulder Ltd. The Pr.Cit बनाम/ 3Rd Floor, B-Jadav Chambers Ahmedabad-1 V/S. Navrangpura H.O. Ahmedabad – 380 015 Ashram Road Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabcg 0563 A (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ahmedabad-1 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Pr. Cit” For Short] Dated 07/03/2025 Passed In Exercise Of His Revisionary Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short] For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020- 21. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Gmm Pfaulder Ltd. Vs. Pcit Asst. Year : 2020-21 2

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR
Section 135Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 32Section 80G

…the view adopted by the Assessing Officer was a possible view supported by judicial pronouncements. It is well settled by the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT v. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) that an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be held to be erroneous merely because the Principal CIT does not agree with the conclusion arrived at by the Assessing Officer, unless the view adopted by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law. In the present case, the Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view after conducting due enq…

Surbhit Impex Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2570/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri K. Shivaram Sr. Adv.& Shri Shashi Bekkal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT-DR)
Section 147Section 263Section 41(1)

…he power of suo motu revision cannot be exercised. Any and every erroneous order cannot be subject-matter of revision because the second requirement also must be fulfilled." 5.4 Further, we find that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd. in 295 ITR 282 (SC) had held that where two views are possible and ITO has taken one view which ld. CIT does not agree the order of A.O, cannot be treated as erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of Revenue unless the view taken by the A.O is unsustainable in law. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Nirav Modi reported in [2017] 390 ITR 292 (B…

Sh. Sukhvinder Singh, Kanpur vs. Pr CIT, Central, Kanpur

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 190/LKW/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 263

…32 of the Act in the case of the assessee. Thus, impugned order of Ld. PCIT passed under section 132 of the Act is clearly inconsistent with this well settled principle laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court. (C.2.1) In the case of CIT v Max India Limited (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC): it was held that when the Assessing Officer takes one of the two view permissible in law and which the Commissioner does not agree with and which resulted in a loss of Revenue, it cannot be treated as erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is completely unsustainable in law. I…

Slr Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 544/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263

…s prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. At this juncture, it is relevant to discuss various case laws relied upon by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee, on provisions of Sec.263 of the Act: 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282) has held that when an ITO adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue or where two views are possible and the ITO has taken one view with which the CIT did not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Madras High Court followed the above decision of the…

Arun Kumar Mishra, Buxar vs. Pr.CIT-1, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 21/PAT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Shri Kant Mishra Income Tax Officer Maha Laxmi Steel Ward-1(5) Vs. Station Road, Buxar-802101 Buxar, Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afipm0714N Brij Kumar Mishra Plot No. 36, Gajadhar Ganj, Ram Ito, Ward-1(5) Bagh, Buxar, Buxar, Bihar, Buxar, Buxar, Bihar Vs. 802101 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Afipm0712L Ajeet Kumar Mishra Ito, Ward-1(5) Buxar, Bihar, 802101 Buxar, Buxar, Bihar Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afipm0713M Arun Kumar Mishra Opp. Mahatma Gandhi Magar, Ito, Ward-1(5) Bazar Samity, Rambagh, Buxar, Buxar, Buxar, Bihar Vs. Buxar, Bihar, 802101 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afipm0716Q Assessee By : Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajat Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Datta, DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…s been invoked invalidly which is against the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). The Ld. AR further submitted that once it is proved that the documents were called from the assessee by the Learned AR and assessee furnished the same, then it is to be presumed that the AO examined these evidences and only thereafter taken a possible view while framing the assessment. The Learned AR submitted that if the AO has taken a pos…

Ajeet Kumar Mishra, Buxar vs. Pr.CIT-1, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 20/PAT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Shri Kant Mishra Income Tax Officer Maha Laxmi Steel Ward-1(5) Vs. Station Road, Buxar-802101 Buxar, Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afipm0714N Brij Kumar Mishra Plot No. 36, Gajadhar Ganj, Ram Ito, Ward-1(5) Bagh, Buxar, Buxar, Bihar, Buxar, Buxar, Bihar Vs. 802101 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Afipm0712L Ajeet Kumar Mishra Ito, Ward-1(5) Buxar, Bihar, 802101 Buxar, Buxar, Bihar Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afipm0713M Arun Kumar Mishra Opp. Mahatma Gandhi Magar, Ito, Ward-1(5) Bazar Samity, Rambagh, Buxar, Buxar, Buxar, Bihar Vs. Buxar, Bihar, 802101 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afipm0716Q Assessee By : Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajat Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Datta, DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…s been invoked invalidly which is against the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). The Ld. AR further submitted that once it is proved that the documents were called from the assessee by the Learned AR and assessee furnished the same, then it is to be presumed that the AO examined these evidences and only thereafter taken a possible view while framing the assessment. The Learned AR submitted that if the AO has taken a pos…

Brij Kumar Mishra, Buxar vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Buxar

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 18/PAT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Shri Kant Mishra Income Tax Officer Maha Laxmi Steel Ward-1(5) Vs. Station Road, Buxar-802101 Buxar, Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afipm0714N Brij Kumar Mishra Plot No. 36, Gajadhar Ganj, Ram Ito, Ward-1(5) Bagh, Buxar, Buxar, Bihar, Buxar, Buxar, Bihar Vs. 802101 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Afipm0712L Ajeet Kumar Mishra Ito, Ward-1(5) Buxar, Bihar, 802101 Buxar, Buxar, Bihar Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afipm0713M Arun Kumar Mishra Opp. Mahatma Gandhi Magar, Ito, Ward-1(5) Bazar Samity, Rambagh, Buxar, Buxar, Buxar, Bihar Vs. Buxar, Bihar, 802101 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afipm0716Q Assessee By : Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajat Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Datta, DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…s been invoked invalidly which is against the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). The Ld. AR further submitted that once it is proved that the documents were called from the assessee by the Learned AR and assessee furnished the same, then it is to be presumed that the AO examined these evidences and only thereafter taken a possible view while framing the assessment. The Learned AR submitted that if the AO has taken a pos…

Shri Kant Mishra, Buxar vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Buxar

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 17/PAT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Shri Kant Mishra Income Tax Officer Maha Laxmi Steel Ward-1(5) Vs. Station Road, Buxar-802101 Buxar, Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afipm0714N Brij Kumar Mishra Plot No. 36, Gajadhar Ganj, Ram Ito, Ward-1(5) Bagh, Buxar, Buxar, Bihar, Buxar, Buxar, Bihar Vs. 802101 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Afipm0712L Ajeet Kumar Mishra Ito, Ward-1(5) Buxar, Bihar, 802101 Buxar, Buxar, Bihar Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afipm0713M Arun Kumar Mishra Opp. Mahatma Gandhi Magar, Ito, Ward-1(5) Bazar Samity, Rambagh, Buxar, Buxar, Buxar, Bihar Vs. Buxar, Bihar, 802101 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afipm0716Q Assessee By : Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajat Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Datta, DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…s been invoked invalidly which is against the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). The Ld. AR further submitted that once it is proved that the documents were called from the assessee by the Learned AR and assessee furnished the same, then it is to be presumed that the AO examined these evidences and only thereafter taken a possible view while framing the assessment. The Learned AR submitted that if the AO has taken a pos…

Sanjeev Kumar Rana, Ropar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 706/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.706/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Sanjeev Kumar Rana Pr. Cit बनाम/ Vs. 93-Kiln Area, Nangal Ropar Sector -17E (Punjab) 140124. Chandigarh "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aespk-7126-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca)(Virtual) –Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit)(Virtual) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assails Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chandigarh-1 (Pr. Cit) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Vide Impugned Order Dated 10-05-2023 Proposing Revision Of An Assessment As Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 12-10-2017. 2. Briefly Stated, The Assessee Was Assessed U/S 143(3) On 12-10-2017 Wherein The Income Of The Assessee Was Determined At Rs.8.79 Lacs After

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA)(Virtual) –Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT)(Virtual) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 68

…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 in Grasim Industries Ltd. V/s CIT (321 ITR 92). The ratio of all these decisions is that where two views are possible and AO has preferred one view against another view, order could not be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 8. In the case of Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108), H…

Rivaara Labs Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3640/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi,ARFor Respondent: Shri Uma Shankar Prasad, (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35DSection 37Section 37(1)

…so the power of suo motu revision cannot be exercised. Any and every erroneous order cannot be subject-matter of revision because the second requirement also must be fulfilled." 8.2 Further, we find the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC) had held that where two views are possible and ITO has taken one view which Id. CIT does not agree the order of A.O cannot be treated as erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of Revenue unless the view taken by the A.O is unsustainable in law. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi reported in [2017] 390 ITR 292 (B…

Ram Baburao Salve, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 17(3)(!), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5370/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agarwal & Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ram Baburao Salve Vs. ITO Wd 17(3)(1), 17/18, Vyapar Bhuvan P. Mumbai. D’Mello Road, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai – 400009. PAN/GIR No. AACPS5498L (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Dharan Gandhi – Advocate Revenue by Shri Umashankar Prasad - CIT DR Date of Hearing 23.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 13.10.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the different impugned order d…