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)

Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineers Ltd, Kolkata vs. Princiapal C.I.T., Kolkata - I, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1099/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Ms. Madhumita Roy, Hon’Ble] [Through Virtual Court] I.T.A. Nos. 1099 & 1100/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Garden Reach Ship Builders & Engineers Ltd..............................………………..Appellant 43/46, Garden Reach Road, Kolkata – 700 024. [Pan: Aacg 9371 K] Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Incomes Tax, Kolkata – 1, Kolkata ……………………………Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. Appearances By: Shri Sanjoy Bhattacharya, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 17, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order November 20, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy: Am Both These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata - 1, Kolkata Passed U/S 263 Of The Act 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 21.03.2018. As The Issues Arising In Both The Appeals Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘C’ KOLKATA [BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. MADHUMITA ROY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER] [THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT] I.T.A. Nos. 1099 & 1100/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s. Garden Reach Ship Builders & Engineers Ltd..............................………………..Appellant 43/46, Garden Reach Road, Kolkata – 700 024. [PAN: AACG 9371 K] VS. Pr. Commissioner of Incomes Tax, Kolkata – 1, Kolkata ……………………………Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. Appearances by: Shri Sanjoy Bhattacharya, Advocate appearing on behalf of th…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt.Neena Krishna Menon

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

ITA/343/2015HC Karnataka19 Nov 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260Section 263Section 54E

…oes not agree, the order passed by the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The principles laid down in the aforesaid decision were reiterated by the Supreme Court in ‘CIT VS. MAX INDIA LTD.,’ 295 ITR 282 (SC) and recently in ‘ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. AND ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.’, CIVIL APPEAL NO.2773/2020 DECIDED ON 17.07.2020. 9. In the backdrop of the well settled legal position, if the facts of the case in hand are examined, it is axiomatic that the view taken by the Assessing Officer was one of the possible views. Th…

M/S. Om Prakash Badaya (HUF), Jaipur vs. Pr.CIT, Alwar

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

ITA 217/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2020AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agrawal (AR)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (ACIT-DR)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ng the fact that all such enquiries were conducted by the ld. AO while issuing the show cause letter. Therefore, the action of the Ld. AO was not at all prejudicial to the interest of revenue. It has been held in the case of CIT v. Max India Ltd. reported in 295 ITR 282 (SC) that ‘every loss of revenue cannot be said to be prejudicial to the interests of revenue’, however in this case interestingly, there has been no loss at all to the revenue, accordingly, it cannot be said that the action of Ld. AO was prejudicial to the interest of revenue. This submission of assessee is fortified from the ITANo.217/JP/2020 1…