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 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.

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

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

ITA 3132/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2005-06

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…

Sterling Biotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 1, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 2756/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunathaswamy
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 69

…facts of assessee as discussed above. Thus, the ratio of Jawanmal Gemaji Gandhi (supra) supports the proposition of applicability of telescopy as requested by the assessee. 19. We also find that Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282(SC) held as under: “The phrase “prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue” in ITA Nos.2750 to 2756/Mum/16 A.Ys. 06-07 to 12-13 [Sterling Biotech Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT] Page 29 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 conseq…

Sterling Biotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 1, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 2755/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunathaswamy
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 69

…facts of assessee as discussed above. Thus, the ratio of Jawanmal Gemaji Gandhi (supra) supports the proposition of applicability of telescopy as requested by the assessee. 19. We also find that Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282(SC) held as under: “The phrase “prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue” in ITA Nos.2750 to 2756/Mum/16 A.Ys. 06-07 to 12-13 [Sterling Biotech Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT] Page 29 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 conseq…

Sterling Biotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 1, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 2754/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunathaswamy
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 69

…facts of assessee as discussed above. Thus, the ratio of Jawanmal Gemaji Gandhi (supra) supports the proposition of applicability of telescopy as requested by the assessee. 19. We also find that Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282(SC) held as under: “The phrase “prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue” in ITA Nos.2750 to 2756/Mum/16 A.Ys. 06-07 to 12-13 [Sterling Biotech Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT] Page 29 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 conseq…

Sterling Biotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 1, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 2753/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunathaswamy
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 69

…facts of assessee as discussed above. Thus, the ratio of Jawanmal Gemaji Gandhi (supra) supports the proposition of applicability of telescopy as requested by the assessee. 19. We also find that Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282(SC) held as under: “The phrase “prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue” in ITA Nos.2750 to 2756/Mum/16 A.Ys. 06-07 to 12-13 [Sterling Biotech Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT] Page 29 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 conseq…

Sterling Biotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 1, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 2752/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunathaswamy
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 69

…facts of assessee as discussed above. Thus, the ratio of Jawanmal Gemaji Gandhi (supra) supports the proposition of applicability of telescopy as requested by the assessee. 19. We also find that Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282(SC) held as under: “The phrase “prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue” in ITA Nos.2750 to 2756/Mum/16 A.Ys. 06-07 to 12-13 [Sterling Biotech Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT] Page 29 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 conseq…

Sterling Biotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 1, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 2751/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunathaswamy
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 69

…facts of assessee as discussed above. Thus, the ratio of Jawanmal Gemaji Gandhi (supra) supports the proposition of applicability of telescopy as requested by the assessee. 19. We also find that Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282(SC) held as under: “The phrase “prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue” in ITA Nos.2750 to 2756/Mum/16 A.Ys. 06-07 to 12-13 [Sterling Biotech Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT] Page 29 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 conseq…

Sterling Biotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 1, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 2750/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunathaswamy
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 69

…facts of assessee as discussed above. Thus, the ratio of Jawanmal Gemaji Gandhi (supra) supports the proposition of applicability of telescopy as requested by the assessee. 19. We also find that Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282(SC) held as under: “The phrase “prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue” in ITA Nos.2750 to 2756/Mum/16 A.Ys. 06-07 to 12-13 [Sterling Biotech Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT] Page 29 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 conseq…

Khoday Eshwarsa & Sons, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1117/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. Sunil Kumar Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sukumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sibichen K. Mathew, CIT -III
Section 263

…hearings. As per the Ld. AR, AO had taken a possible view that the amount received was not taxable being capital in nature. Relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd, v. CIT [243 ITR 83] and CIT v. Max India Ltd, [295 ITR 282], Ld. AR submitted that CIT could not substitute a lawful view taken by the AO. As per the Ld. AR, CIT did not indicate how the facts in assessee’s case were different from that of Hon’ble Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Bombay Burmah Trading Corpn. Ltd, (supra). Ld. AR submitted that compensation received in breach of agreement for sal…

M/S Integrated Education Research Centre for Engineering and Management, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemptions), Kolkata

In the result the appeal is allowed while the stay application is dismissed

ITA 620/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M.Balaganesh

For Appellant: Mr.S.M.Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Snehotpal Datta, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 35(2)(iv)

…es not agree with the view taken by the Assessing Officer which has resulted in a loss as held by the Hon’ble ITA No.620/Kol/2016 M/S.Integrated Education Research Centre for Engineering & Management. Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). Assuming all that is stated by the respondent in the impugned order is to be accepted as correct, even then no revision could be made u/s.263 of the Act for the reason that two views are possible on the issue raised by the respondent in the impugned order. It is clear from the order of the respondent that two divergent views have been expr…

M/S. Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Ltd., Hisar vs. ACIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2560/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2009-10 Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 168, Delhi Rod, Sector 27-28, Hisar. Hisar. (Pan: Aaics9088H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Shri Ashish Kumar, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Pankaj Vidharthi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Vidharthi, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 80I

…. Ltd. [2011]. The Ld. AR further submitted that were two views are possible and Assessing Officer follows one of the possible view, the CIT cannot sit over the judgment of the AO. This was held by the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC). Similar view has been taken by Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Kelvinator India Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 231 (Del). The Ld. AR submitted that the order u/s 263 being bad in law deserved to be quashed. 9. The Ld. DR, while supporting and defending the order of the Ld. CIT, submitted that there was no application of mind by the…

People Infocom Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. C.I.T. Cir.7, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 210/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2007-08 People Infocom Private Ltd. Cit-7, C/O- Samria & Co. Room No.611, बनाम/ Chartered Accountants, 6Th Floor, Vs. 2E, Court Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, 35, New Marine Lines, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aadcp5658H (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

Section 263Section 51

…case, due enquiries was made by the Assessing Officer and the necessary details, filed by the assessee were examined, therefore, this judicial pronouncements supports the case of the assessee. Identical ratio was laid down in CIT vs Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282, wherein, the decision of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. was also considered and the appeal of the Department was dismissed. It is elementary, as was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co Ltd Vs CIT [(2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC)], “Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of AO cannot be treated as prejudicial…

Goldman Sachs India Finance P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 1, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11

ITA 2227/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2016AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri J.D.MistryFor Respondent: Shri Subachan Ram
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…le under the provisions of section263 of the Act . In support of the above proposition, the Ld. Sr. Counsel placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements:- (i) Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 83(SC) (ii) Max India Ltd. vs. CIT (2008) 295 ITR 282(SC) (iii) Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) 4.1.3 Reliance was also placed on the following judicial pronouncements in support of the proposition that the CIT cannot substitute his views on a particular issue in relation to which a view has already been taken by the Assessing Officer:- (i) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2010) 332 ITR 167 (D…

Schneider Electric It Business India Pvt Ltd vs. CIT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-company is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 833/BANG/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 263Section 92A

…the law laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. (94 Taxman 192). He also relied on the following decisions: i. Malbar Industries Co Ltd v. CIT [20001 243 ITR 83 (SC); ii. CIT v. Max India Limited [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC); iii. CIT v Gokuldas Exports [2012] 20 taxmann.com 491 (Kar.HC); iv. CIT v Vodafone Essar South Ltd [IT Appeal No.119 of 2012] (Delhi HC); v. CIT v Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. [2010] 333 ITR 547 (Delhi HC); vi. Infosys BPO Ltd v ACIT [2012] 25 taxmann.com 571 (Bangalore ITAT); vii. Reliance Communication Limited v ACIT [ITA No 2915/ Mum/…

Ashoka Roof Gardnes P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3684/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R C Sharma & Shri Amit Shuklaअशोका "फ गाड"स "ाइवेट "ल"मटेड Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, R.No.344, Aayakar Bhavan, Ashoka Roof Gardens P Ltd., M K Road, 173 Ashoka Shopping Centre, Mumbai -400 020 Lt Road, G T Hospital Compound, Mumbai -400 001 Pan: Aaeca 9035 H अपीलाथ" (Appellant) ""यथ" (Respondent) Appellant By "ी अमर गहलोत Shri Amar Gahlot : "ी एस "ीराम Shri S Sriram Respondent By : "ी राजेश कुमार Shri Rajesh Kumar सुनवाईक"तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 18-02-2016 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06-05-2016

Section 143(1)Section 263

…ent order. In support he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial 6 अशोका "फ गाड"स "ाइवेट "ल"मटेड Ashoka Roof Gardens P Ltd. Development Corp., reported in 243 ITR 82 and in case of CIT v Max India Ltd., reported in 295 ITR 282. 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR strongly relied upon the order of the CIT and submitted that from the nature of payment and the fact that assessee has merely let out the terrace for installation, the income earned should have been treated as assessable under the head “Income from house property” and not as business income. 7. We have heard the riv…

M/S. Century Textiles and Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cir 6(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5677/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 105Section 106Section 10BSection 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…is erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue cannot cancel the assessment within the ambit and scope of section 263. In support, he strongly relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Max India, reported in [2007] 295 ITR 282. Further in support of his contention that it is incumbent for the Ld. CIT to point out and record a finding that the order is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jewel of India vs. ACIT, reported in [2010] 325 ITR 92 and Delhi High Court decision in the case…

M/S. Century Textiles and Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT RG 6(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4875/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 105Section 106Section 10BSection 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…is erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue cannot cancel the assessment within the ambit and scope of section 263. In support, he strongly relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Max India, reported in [2007] 295 ITR 282. Further in support of his contention that it is incumbent for the Ld. CIT to point out and record a finding that the order is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jewel of India vs. ACIT, reported in [2010] 325 ITR 92 and Delhi High Court decision in the case…

Krunal Pravinchandra Gala, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1 Thane, Pune

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1312/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

Section 263Section 80I

…essment order. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Siddhi Real Estate Developers vs CIT (ITA Nos. 2630 to 2635/Mum/2012) order dated 13/05/2014, Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC), CIT vs Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC). On the issue of Cluster of buildings from out of large layout and eligibility for deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act, the ld. counsel placed reliance upon the decision in CIT vs Vandana Properties 353 ITR 36 (Bom.), DCIT vs Karunal P. Gala (ITA No.7724/Mum/2010) order dated 03/08/2012, Madhur M. Gupta vs ACIT (51 DTR 217)(Mum.)(2011), DCIT v…

Kiduja Securirities P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT City -3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3564/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri F.V.IraniFor Respondent: Shri B.Pruseth
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 48Section 55

…the AO has made full enquiry with regard to assessee’s claim of deduction of Keyman insurance Policy, therefore, the order of AO cannot be said to be erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Reliance was placed on the decision reported at 295 ITR 282, 26 TTJ 629, 54 SOT 493. 6. On the other hand, ld. DR contended that the AO has not applied his mind nor raised any query with regard to wrong claim of Keyman Insurance Policy against capital gain, therefore, the order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Gauhati High C…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Hisar

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

ITA 3128/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 263

…the assessment only if the twin conditions i.e. the order is erroneous and the order is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, are satisfied cumulatively. The ld. AR also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 in this regard. Further the ld. AR submitted that once the relevant details/documents are available on record and a view can be formed by the Assessing Officer on the basis of material available on record and it may not be necessary for the Assessing Officer to conduct the detailed inquiry. In support of the proposition, he relied on the 3128/Del…