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 367,154 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.

M/S Hero Honda Motors Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2148/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh C.M.Garg & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Honda Motors Ltd, Dcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, Circle-12(1), Vs. New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacg0812J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. AK Saroha, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 32Section 37(1)Section 40Section 9

…ur of the assessee by the various stages of appellate authorities therefore it cannot be said that the treatment given by the Assessing Officer to various issues is erroneous. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Max India 295 ITR 282. He further referred to page No. 129 of the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of CIT Vs. Max India wherein it was argued by the revenue that on the basis of subsequent decision of the tribunal it could not be said that the view taken by the Assessing Officer was a possible view. ii. He further referred to the decision…

Shree D.K. Associates, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 32, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5659/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(3)Section 263

…9 ITR 502 (Guj) and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 159 CTR (SC) 1 : (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) relied on).” In our opinion, the impugned case is duly covered by this decision also. 17. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India Limited, 295 ITR 282 (SC) has held as under :- “The phrase “prejudicial to the interests 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 prejudicial to the in…

Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT-03, New Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2813/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Smt. Beena A. Pillaii.T.A. No. 2813/Del/2016 (Assessment Year 2011-12)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT (DR)

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

…nder 263 of the Act was outside the scope of revisionary jurisdiction. Ld. Counsel for assessee relied upon the following decisions to substantiate his preposition: • Malabar industrial Co Ltd reported in 243 ITR 83 (SC) • CIT versus Max India Ltd reported in 295 ITR 282 (SC) • CIT versus Kelvinator of India Ltd reported in 332 ITR 231 (Del) 10. He submitted that the view taken by the assessing officer was substantiated by the legal precedents and thus, the original assessment was in conformity with law it and therefore cannot be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 11. On the cont…

Bhagirath Chandulal Arya, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 18, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 931/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263

…her, it is the case of the assessee that AO has also taken a possible view in the matter and the CIT cannot substitute the same with his view. For this proposition, he relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) and another judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industries Co. Ltd vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC). Further, assessee also submitted that 40 lakh shares were transferred to his daughter in normal cause of sale of shares – Long Term Capital Assets - involving a registered Broker M/s. Sunidhi Securities & Finance Ltd. 5. However,…

Shri Satish Jain, Indore vs. The CIT-2, Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 342/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 263

…ot agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law." 9. Following the aforesaid judgment, the Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) reiterated that the phrase "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" as used in section 263(1) of the Act must be read in conjunction with the expression "erroneous" and unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is found to be unsustainable in law, the powers under section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked. 10. In view of the settled…

People Ineractive (I) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 7, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3717/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 10ASection 147Section 263

…. It was also pleaded that one of the possible view was taken by the Assessing Officer. He placed reliance upon the decision in CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom.), CIT vs Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. 243 ITR 83 (SC), CIT vs Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282)(SC), General Electrical International Inc. vs ACIT 287 ITR (80) 43(Bom.). The ld. counsel also claimed that relief u/s 10A of the Act is of the nature of exemption, although termed as deduction, therefore, such income is neither subject to charge of ITA No. 3558 & 3717/Mum/2016 3 income tax nor includible in the total income, thus, the relief u…

People Ineractive (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 7, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3558/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 10ASection 147Section 263

Tamilnadu Road Development Co. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2192/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A. S. Sriraman, Advocate

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ' सी ' "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी जी. पवन कुमार, "या$यक सद"य के सम% BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2192/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/s. Tamilnadu Road Development Co. Ltd The Assistant Commissioner 171, 2nd Floor, TNMB Building, Vs. of Income Tax, South Kesavaperumal Road, Company Circle III(1), Greenways Road, Chennai. R.A. Puram, Chennai 600 028. [PAN: AABCT 3389H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)…

Chandan M Parmar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4601/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (AR)For Respondent: Shri Subhlachan Ram & Ms

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 2(14)Section 253Section 263Section 43(5)Section 68

…conclusion cannot be drawn by the Commissioner that no proper enquiry with respect to the issue was made by the assessing officer, and enable him to assume jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act”. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of CIT Vs Max India Ltd.[295 ITR 282(SC)] relying upon its earlier decision in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) (supra) held as under: "The phrase "prejudicial to the interests 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 re…

M/S Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2487/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J.S. Reddy

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Ranjan, Adv. Sh. Vartik RFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Saroha, CIT(DR)

Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

…trast to sufficiency of enquiry can be a ground for Revision. 3.19 In support of the above legal argument, reliance is placed on the following pronouncements of the judiciary : (Relevant extracts reproduced for ease of reference): i. SC in Max India Limited 295 ITR 282 (2007) affirming P&H HC 268 ITR 128 and following SC in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd 243 ITR 83 (2000) “Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. For example, when an Income-tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulte…

M/S Mypol Polymers Technologies Private

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

COP/25/2016HC Karnataka15 Sept 2016

Bench: L.NARAYANA SWAMY

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260Section 260ASection 263Section 54F

…ot 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 10 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 instant case, the assessee sold two vacant residential sites in the Assessment Year 2005-06. The site situate at HSR Layout was sold on 01.07.2004 for a consideration of RS.33,50,000/- and s…

M/S Goa Bambay Roadlines vs. CIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3104/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh & Rakesh Jain, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 194C(3)(i)Section 194C(6)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’ : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3104/Del /2013 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s Goa Bombay Roadlines Vs. The C.I.T. Old State Bank Street Hissar Narwana [Haryana] New Delhi PAN : AAHFG 0227G [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 26.07.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 29.08.2016 Appellant by : Shri Gurjeet Singh & Rakesh Jain, Advs Respondent by : Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT-DR ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the o…

Real Trade Technologies, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 28, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 2929/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)& Pawan Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 2929/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2011-12) M/s. Real Trade Principal Commissioner Technologies Vs. of Income Tax-28 Office No. 101 3rd Floor, 6th Tower Real Tech Park Vashi Railway Station Plot No. 39/2 Complex, Vashi Sector 30A, Vashi Navi Mumbai-400 703. Navi Mumbai-400 705. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No.AAIFR4687C Assessee by Dr. P. Daniel Department by Shri A.K. Srivastava Date of Hearing 14.7.2016 Date of Pronouncement 22.7.2016 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :- The appeal filed by the…

Manojkumar Shreeparkash Gupta, Mumbai vs. CIT 21, Mumbai

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

ITA 3341/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Ramlal Negi (JM) I.T.A. No. 3341/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2009-10) Manojkumar Shreeprakash CIT-21 Gupta Vs. C-11, 6th Floor 302B, Saki Vihar Complex Pratyakshakar Bhavan Saki Vihar Road Bandra Kurla Complex Saki Naka, Andheri East Bandra East Mumbai-400 072. Mumbai-400 051. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No.AERPG7832H Assessee by Shri Paras Jain Department by Shri Y.K. Bhaskar Date of Hearing 11.6.2016 Date of Pronouncement 20.7.2016 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :- The assessee has filed this appeal challengin…

Apple India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Pr. CIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 824/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Apple India Pvt. Ltd. 19Th Floor, Concorde Tower ‘C’ Ub City, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560001. … Appellant Pa No.Aaacv 7566 R Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(1), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Sekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)

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

…e views. Therefore, the assessment order is not amenable to the jurisdiction u/s 263. In this connection, he relied on the following case laws: i. Malabar Industries Co Ltd v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC); ii. CIT(Central) Ludhiana v. Max India Ltd (2007) [2007]295 ITR 282(SC) iii. Gokuldas Exports [2011] 333 ITR 214 (Kar.) HC); iv. CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Delhi); v. CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bombay HC); and vi. CIT vs. Vikas Polymers [2012] 341 ITR 537 (Delhi HC) 4.2 On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative vehemently contended that the AO had failed to exami…

Mc Nally Bharat Engineering Company Limited, Kolkata vs. C.I.T Kol - 1, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 840/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 840/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Mc.Nally Bharat Engineering -Vs.- C.I.T., Circle-1, Company Limited, Kolkata Kolkata. [Pan : Aabcm 9443 R] (Respondent) (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Soumen Adak, FCA

Section 142(1)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM] I.T.A No. 840/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Mc.Nally Bharat Engineering -vs.- C.I.T., Circle-1, Company Limited, Kolkata Kolkata. [PAN : AABCM 9443 R] (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : Shri Soumen Adak, FCA For the Respondent Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing : 11.07.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 15.7.2016. Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM ORDER This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dated 28.03.2013 of CIT, Circle-I, Kolkata passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Ac…

Surya Merchants Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, Kanpur

In the result, all the five Appeals filed by the Assessee stand

ITA 3136/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT(DR)

Section 153ASection 263Section 40A(3)Section 80I

…(Del) c. CIT vs. Vinod Kumar Gupta (2007) 165 TAXMAN 225 (P&H) d. CIT vs. Design & Automation Engineers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. ITA NOS. 3132-3136/Del/2014 (2010) 323 ITR 632 e. CIT vs. Munjal Castings (2008) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) f. CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) g. Ranka Jewellers vs. Add CIT (2010) 328 ITR 148 h. CIT vs. Mahendra umar Bansal (2008) 297 ITR 99 (All) 6.5 It was further stated by the Ld. AR that stand of the Ld. CIT for AY 2004-05 and next five years is contradictory and is against principles of consistency and for this contention he placed reliance on the following case laws:- a…