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 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 263 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 144B Section 143(2)Section 147 Section 148 Section 1961

Issues it is cited on

malabar industrial inadequate enquiry revision u/s 263 assessment order erroneous lack of enquiry revision under section 263 section 263(1)erroneous and prejudicial section 263 section 26 principal commissioner of income-tax non-application of mind

Judgments citing CIT v. Max India Ltd.

Haryana Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Panchkula vs. DCIT, Exemption, Chandigarh

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 337/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 237/Chd/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Haryana Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Bays No. 29- 30, Sector 4, Panchkula, Haryana The Dcit, बनाम Circle 2, Vs. Exemption, Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaath6995H अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.337 To 339/Chd/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Haryana Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Bays No. 29- 30, Sector 4, Panchkula, Haryana The Dcit बनाम Exemption, Vs. Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaath6995H अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 63/Chd/2021 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Haryana Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Bays No. 29-30, Sector 4, Panchkula, Haryana The Dcit बनाम Exemptions, Vs. Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaath6995H अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate, Sh. Ashok Goyal, Ca & Sh. Sifatfreet Singh, Ca राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Manav Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 10.12.2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: The Captioned Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals) For Different Assessment Years, As Per The Details Given Below: S.No.

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 263

…record. 3.1.3 It is settled law that where the Learned AO has made enquiries and taken one of the possible views, the Learned Commissioner cannot invoke section 263 merely because he has a different opinion. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India Ltd. [295 ITR 282] held that when two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one such view, revision under section 263 is not permissible. 3.1.4 Section 263 can be invoked only if the impugned assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The twin conditions are conjunctive, satisfaction of only one does not permit…

Sharmanji Yarns Private Limited, Ludhiana vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ludhiana

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 706/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar (CA) -Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Tarundeep Kaur(CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)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 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. 15. In the case of Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108),…

Pharmanza Herbal Private Limited, Dharmaj vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Vadodara-1, Vaodara

ITA 749/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

…lure to do so renders the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue within the meaning of section 263 of the Act. The reliance placed by the assessee on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) is misplaced since the statutory amendments made post 01.04.2016 have removed any ambiguity and there is no longer any scope for two possible views on this issue. Similarly, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in NDTV v. ACIT, Civil Appeal No. 1008 of 2020, has no application to the facts of the present case where the Pharmanza Herbal…

Sanjay Chawla, Chaibasa vs. Pr. CIT, Ranchi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 135/RAN/2025[20-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaysanjay Chawla, Pr.C.I.T., Sentola, Chaibasa-833201 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Vs. Pan No. Acmpc 6808 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 63

…xplanation 2 of section 263 of the Act 1961. Therefore, by invocation of Explanation in the order without confronting the assessee and giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee is not appropriate and sustainable in law. CIT V. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282/213 CTR 266/(2008) 166 Taxman 188 /204 Taxman 1 SC-Hon'ble Apex Court observed that:- "The phrase "Prejudicial to the interest of revenue" section 263 has to be read in conjunction with the expression "erroneous". When the Assessing Officer takes one of the two views permissible in law and which the Commissioner does not agree with and which resu…

M/S. Parishram Builders, Veraval vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 98/RJT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.98/Rjt/2021 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Parisharam Builders The Pr. Commissioner Of बनाम Krunal Complex, Income Tax, Rajkot-1, 1St Floor, Junagadh Road, Veraval Vs. Rajkot Gujarat-362266 Pan : Aacfp5403G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

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

…td. vs. ITO (106 ITR 01). (C) Decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT 243 ITR 83. (d) Decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v/s. Arvind Jewellers (259 ITR 502). (e) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC), CIT vs. Jagson International Limited 214 CTR (Del) 227. (g) CIT vs. SakSoft Ltd. 298 ITR 63 (Mad.) (h) CIT vs. R.K. Construction Co. 313 ITR 65 (Guj.) 6. However, Ld. PCIT rejected the above contention of the assessee and observed that in some cases, the payments have been made in cash in various instalment, less than Rs. 20,000/-. This fa…

Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -6, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3293/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri J D Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

…d so and it is for that reason that the Tribunal did not approve his action and set aside his order. We do not find any infirmity in the above conclusion of the Tribunal.” 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd. reported in [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC), had the occasion to consider a similar challenge to 263 proceedings and held as under:- “1. In our view at the relevant time two views were possible on the word 'profits' in the proviso to section 80HHC(3). It is true that vide 2005 amendment the law has been clarified with retrospective effect by insertion of the word 'loss' in the new pro…

Vinay Tarachand Chawla, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3371/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)

…lowing of one of the opinion available out of two opinions, the assessment order cannot be held to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC). Similarly, regarding the claim of loss on account of waiver of right of receiving the loan is also approved by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Siemens Nixdorf Information System GmbH [2020] 114 Taxmann.com 531 (Bombay) and PCIT V. Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. [2019] 111 Taxmann.com 413 (Bombay), wherein the Hon'ble j…

Govindegowda Ramegowda, Mandya vs. Pr. CIT, Bengaluru-3, Bengaluru

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 925/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Tharun Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263

…enue. 19. We have also considered the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and other Hon’ble High Courts which are relied on by the assessee in support of their case. i) Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd. reported in (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) ii) Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) iii) Judgement of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs. Chemsworth (P.) Ltd. reported in (2020) 119 taxmann.com 358 (Kar) 20. In the above judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon’ble Jurisdictiona…

Gowdahally Lingegowda Lakshmegowda, Mandya vs. Pr. CIT, Bengaluru-3, Bengaluru

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 924/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Tharun Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263

Kadalur Ramakrishna Mahesha, Mandya vs. Pr. CIT, Bengaluru-3, Bengaluru

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 923/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Tharun Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263

Dr. Pratap Pandhiranath Patil, Pune vs. PCIT - 2, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 1026/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Iyer and Shri Siddhant G. BiswasFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

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

…assuming jurisdiction. Further, he referred and relied on various decisions mentioned in the case law paper book including that of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. The Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) and Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom.). 7 Dr. Pratap Pandharinath Patil 11. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the order of ld. PCIT. 12. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We will f…

Gajanand Financial Consultancy Private Limited, Nagpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Nagpur, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 126/NAG/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…mation/opinion. We rely on following judgments including that the Hon’ble Apex Court; (i) Supreme Court in the case of Greenworld Corporation – [2009] 181 Taxman 111 (SC) (ii) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. V/s CIT (243 ITR 83) (SC) (iii) CIT V/s. Max India Ltd (295 ITR 282) (SC) (iv) High Court of Gujrat in case of Aryan Arcase Ltd. Vs. CIT [2017] 84 taxmann.com 293 (Gujrat) (v) Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Vodafone Essar Sough Ltd. – [2012] 28 taxmann.com 273 (Delhi) (vi) Delhi High Court in the case fo CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma – [2010] 194 Taxman 504 (Delhi) (5) It is respectfully submitted that the iss…

Sharada Electors Private Limited, Pune vs. PCIT, Pune-3, Pune

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

ITA 1432/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263

…ma facie opinion, the assumption of jurisdiction u/s.263 by the CIT was justified. 7.5. The assessee has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial C. Ltd. vs. CIT (243 ITR 83) (SC)/[2000] & CIT Vs. Max India (295 ITR 282) to argue that every order prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue need not be erroneous. However, in the present case, as pointed out hereinabove, the claims of the assessee on the various issues were found to be not acceptable in the fact of the relevant legal position and therefore, the order passed by the AO would clearly fall under the ca…

Radheshyam Paper Mills Private Limited, Lilapar Road, Lilapar vs. PCIT-Rajkot-1, Income Taxdepartment, Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Aaykar Bhavan Ring Road Race Course Rajkot

In the result, appeal OF the assessee is allowed

ITA 243/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Raiyani, Ld.A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Pallavi, Ld.CIT-D.R

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 69Section 69B

…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…

Zari Silk (India) Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 600/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR a

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 148BSection 263Section 69A

…er does not agree with and which results 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. - CIT v. Max India Limited [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) - Malbar Industries Co Ltd v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) In view of above therefore no case for invoking Section 263 of I. T. Act, 1961 and proceedings being wrong and bad in law the same may kindly be dropped. Ground No. 1 relates to objecting the action of Pr. CIT- “ that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. PCIT (Ce…

Arun Palawat, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 599/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR a

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 148BSection 263Section 69A

Sha Pratapchand Pukharaj and Company, Vijayapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Bijapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2547/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha R., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 253Section 253(5)Section 263

…ITA No.2547/Bang/2024 Sha Pratapchand Pukhraj and Company, Vijayapur IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sha Pratapchand Pukhraj and Company C/o Shri S. Parthasarathi, Advocate No.3/1, ‘Pranava Complex’ PCIT Vs. 5th Cross, Malleswaram Hubballi Bangalore 560 003 PAN NO :AADFS9212M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Pratibha R., A.R. Respondent by : Sri Subramanian S., D.R. Date of Hearing : 18.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 15.09.2025 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL…

Vanigota Sugar Trading Company, Vijapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Bijapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2545/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha R., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 253(5)Section 263

…e Assessing Officer takes recourse to one of the two courses possible in law or where there are two views possible and the Commissioner does not agree with the view taken by the Assessing Officer which has resulted in a loss. [See CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC)]. (vi) There is no requirement of issuance of a notice before commencing proceedings under section 263 of the Act. What is required is adherence to the principles of natural justice by granting to the assessee an opportunity of being heard before passing an order under section 263. [See Electro House's case (supra)]. Vanigota Sugar Trading…

Sprit Infrapower & Multiventures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT-8, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1589/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, AR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)

…iberations cannot be dislodged by the CIT/Pr.CIT in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Sec. 263 is fortified by the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT Vs. Max India Ltd (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). Also, support his drawn from the judgments of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) and CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd (1993)203 ITR 108 (Bom). Accordingly, not being able to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the view taken by the Pr.CIT that the order passed by the A.O under Sec.…

Anil Kumar Batar, Sikar vs. PCIT-Jaipur-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 418/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 263

…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 relia…