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.

Dubbi Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd, Dausa vs. ITO WD, Dausa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1283/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR (V.C.)

Section 139Section 144Section 148Section 263Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80P

…sioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, unless the view taken by the AO is totally unsustainable in law. Reliance is also placed on the decision in the case of CTT v/s Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) wherein it is held that "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…

M/S. City Union Bank, Kumbakonam vs. PCIT, Madurai

In the result, both the appeals for A

ITA 1479/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1478 & 1479/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2021-22 M/S. City Union Bank, Pcit No. 148-149, T.S.R Big Street, Vs. Madurai – 1. Kumbakonam – 621 001. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S. Ananthan, Ca & Ms. R. Lalitha, Ca प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025

For Appellant: Mr. S. Ananthan, CA and Ms. R. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 17(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…here is no reason to invoke Sec.263 of the Act by the Ld. PCIT and hence prayed for set aside the order of the Ld. PCIT. In support of their arguments the Ld. ARs relied on the following judicial precedents: - CIT (Central), Ludhiana vs Max India Ltd – [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) - PCIT Vs.V-con Integrated Solutions Pvt. Ltd. – [2025] 173 taxmann.com 774 (SC) - CIT Vs. A.R. Builders & Developers P Ltd – [2020] 425 ITR 272 (Mad) - Shri Perinba Raja Ramesh Versus PCIT (Central) Chennai-1 And Shri PaulpandianUthamaraj Winston Versus PCIT (Central) Chennai-1 - ITA Nos. :418 to 421/Chny/2025 And ITA Nos.:422 to 425/Chny/2…

M/S. City Union Bank, Kumbakonam vs. PCIT, Madurai

In the result, both the appeals for A

ITA 1478/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr. S. Ananthan, CA and Ms. R. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 17(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

Shri Gayatri Co Op Credit Society Niyamit Hattargi, Belagavi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Belagavi

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

ITA 163/PAN/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Sept 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.163/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2021-22 ) Shri Gayatri Co-Op Credit Vs. Pr.Cit, Society Niyamit Hattargi, C.R.Building, P B Road, Dadbanhatti, Navanagar, Yamakanmardi, Hubli-580025, Belagavi-591246, Karnataka Karnataka. Pan .No.Abasas5325A (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…aken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law.” The principle which has been laid down in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) has been followed and explained in a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282.” 7.Further In the case of Nagesh Knitwears P Ltd (2012)(345 ITR 135), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has elucidated and explained the scope of the provisions of sec. 263 of the Act and the same has been extracted by the Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs. Goetze (India) Ltd (361 ITR 505) as under:- “Thus, in cases of wrong opinion or finding…

Fineotex Chemical Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT-4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 3458/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeefineotex Chemical Limited Vs Pcit-4, Room No.629, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 42-43, Manorama Chambers, S.V. Road, Bandra (E), Mumbai- Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 400 050 020 Pan: Aaacf8360M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Lalchand ChoudharyFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna (CIT DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40Section 80G

…present case, no such failure has been established. The Ld. DR has also not placed any contrary precedent or substantive argument to controvert the submissions of the assessee. In our considered view, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2008] 295 ITR 282 (SC) has reiterated the settled law that the twin conditions under section 263—(i) error in the order of the AO, and (ii) prejudice to the interests of the Revenue—must co-exist for valid exercise of revisional jurisdiction. In the absence of fulfilment of these conditions, the order under section 263 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the revisio…

Shri Jadisiddeshwar Urban Co Op Credit Society Limited, Sunadholi vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

The appeal stands PARTLY ALLOWED

ITA 150/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji26 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2020-21 Shri Jadisiddeshwar Urban Co-Operative Credit Society, Ltd. At Post: Sunadholi, Dist. Belgavi-591136 Pan:Aaaaj2715N . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Veeranna Murgod [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 253(1)Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…y view laid by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra) stands reiterated in catena of judicial decisions viz; ‘CIT Vs Max India Ltd. ITAT-Panaji Page 7 of 12 Shri Jadisiddeshwar Urban Co-operative Credit Society, Ltd. Vs. PCIT ITA No.150/PAN/2025, AY: 2020-21 (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC), CIT v. Nahar Exports Ltd. (2007) 288 ITR 494 (P&H), CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) Grasim Industries vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR, 92 (Bom). 8. Keeping in mind former settled legal position now reverting back to the present impugned order under challenge at the very outset we note that, it is an admitted fact that the appellan…

Sri. Jayachamaraja Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Bangalore vs. Pr. CIT, Bengaluru-1, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 983/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri G. Venkatesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…Both the decisions have considered the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore the AO has considered one of the possible view and allowed the claim of assessee. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282 and submitted that at that relevant point of time when the assessment order was passed, two views were possible and one of the view was accepted by the ld. AO and therefore it cannot be said that assessment order passed by the ld. AO is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. He further submitted that the decision…

Lokopayogi Ilakhe and Karnataka Neeravari Nowakarara Pattin Sangh Niyamit, Belagavi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

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

ITA 120/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji25 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.120/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2020-21 ) Lokopayogi Ilakhe & Vs. Pr.Cit, Karnataka Neerawari C.R.Building, Nawakara Pattinsangn Niymit, Navanagar, 1,Fort, Hubli-580025, Belagavi-590016, Karnataka Karnataka. Pan .No.Aaaal1333J (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…ken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law.” The principle which has been laid down in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) has been followed and explained in a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282.” 8.Further In the case of Nagesh Knitwears P Ltd (2012)(345 ITR 135), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has elucidated and explained the scope of the provisions of sec. 263 of the Act and the same has been extracted by the Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs. Goetze (India) Ltd (361 ITR 505) as under:- “Thus, in cases of wrong opinion or finding…

Val Organics Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Comm. of Incomet Tax Circle-4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2473/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Val Organics Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income 4401, Kohinoor Square, B-Wing, Tax, Circle 4(3)(1), Mumbai. N.C. Kelkar Marg, Opp: Shiv Sena Vs. Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Bhavan, Dadar West, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharashi Mumbai- 400028 Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aaacv 4456 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Shekhar GuptaFor Respondent: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 135Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 37Section 80G

…said that the Val Organic Pvt Ltd. 9 assessment order suffered from an error which was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. In this connection, reference may usefully be made to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India Limited [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC), wherein it was held that when two views are reasonably possible on a question of law and the Assessing Officer has adopted one such view, the mere preference of the Commissioner for another view does not justify invocation of revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. 4.3 In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the consid…

Ketan Gori, Jamnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(10), Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 42/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.42/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2021-22 Ketan Gori The Pr.Cit बनाम Plot No.3009 Jamnagar. Gidc Phase-Iii Vs. Dared. Pan : Ahppg 5892 A (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 69C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, राजकोट "यायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.ITA No.42/RJT/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2021-22 Ketan Gori The Pr.CIT बनाम Plot No.3009 Jamnagar. GIDC Phase-III Vs. Dared. PAN : AHPPG 5892 A (अपीलाथ"/assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sagar Shah, ld.AR राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date of Hearing : 12/06/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 22/08/2025 ORDER P…

Maris Spinners Limited., Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue

ITA 945/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2022-23

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80I

…IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year :2022-23 M/s. Maris Spinner Ltd., Vs. DCIT, No.1, A H V S Apartments, Edward Road, Circle –4(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560052, Bengaluru. Karnataka. PAN : AAACM 9874 F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore. Date of hearing : 21.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 22.08.2025 ORDER Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the Orde…

Shri Mallikarjun Credit Souharda Sahakari Limited, Benadi vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

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

ITA 151/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.151/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2020-21 ) Shri Mallikarjun Credit Vs. Pr.Cit, Soudharda Sahakari Limited, C.R.Building, A/P Benadi, Taluka Chikodi, Navanagar, Belagavi-591215, Hubli-580025, Karnataka. Karnataka Pan .No.Aabas3055M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

The Belgaum Manufacturers Co-Op Industrial Estate Ltd, Belagavi vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubbali

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

ITA 154/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji20 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.154/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2020-21) The Belgaum Manufactures Vs. Pr.Cit, Co-Op Industrial Estate C.R.Building, Limited, Navanagar, 10 342/690,Udyambag, Hubli-580025, Belgaum-590008, Karnataka. Karnataka Pan .No.Aaaat7254J (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Pramod Y Vaidya.Ar Revenue By Shri.Captain Pradeep Arya.Cit.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 14.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 20.08.2025 Pronouncement Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit) Hubli Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assesse Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Revision Order Passed By The Pr.Cit Set Aside The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Is A Cooperative Society Registered Under Bombay Co-Operative

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G D PADMAHSHALI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I T A. No.154/PAN/2025 (A.Y.2020-21) The Belgaum Manufactures Vs. Pr.CIT, Co-op industrial Estate C.R.Building, Limited, Navanagar, 10 342/690,Udyambag, Hubli-580025, Belgaum-590008, Karnataka. Karnataka PAN .No.AAAAT7254J (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee by Shri.Pramod Y Vaidya.AR Revenue by Shri.Captain Pradeep Arya.CIT.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing 14.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of 20.08.2025 Pronouncement ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The assessee…

ACIT, Circle 25(1), Delhi vs. T&T Motors Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee

ITA 2049/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Kumar Chaudhary, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Jain, CIT DR

Section 263Section 37

…he AO to redo the verification and assessment. In similar facts on record, the various Courts have held that this is not acceptable and desirable directions as in the several judicial precedents like Malabar Industrial Co Ltd (243 ITR 83) (SC), Max India Ltd (295 ITR 282) (SC) and DLF Ltd (250 ITR 555) (Delhi HC). Therefore, we are inclined to dismiss the views taken by the Ld. PCIT on this aspect in the CO No.26/DEL/2022 impugned order, therefore, the revision order passed u/s 263 is accordingly quashed. 8. The issue of depreciation claim on construction of workshop at Gurgaon, we observe that Ld PCIT remitted t…

T & T Motors Ltd., New Delhi vs. Prcit-09, New Delhi

Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee

ITA 2216/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Kumar Chaudhary, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Jain, CIT DR

Section 263Section 37

The Sankeshwar Souhard Credit Sahakari Limited, Sankeshwar vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

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

ITA 118/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji19 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.118/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2020-21 ) The Sankeshwar Souhard Vs. Pr.Cit, Credit Sahakari Ltd, C.R.Building, Cts.No.41443/B/234, Navanagar, Near Hanuman Temple, Hubli-580025, Nidasoshi Road, Karnataka Sankeshwar-591313, Karnataka. Pan .No.Aaaat8125C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

M/S Gvk Jaipur Expressway Private Limited, Telangana vs. PCIT 2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 248/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80

…the interests of the Revenue. If one of them is absent – if the order of the Income Tax Officer is erroneous but is not prejudicial to th Revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to the Revenue recourse cannot be had to section 263(1) of the Act.” 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT v. Max India Ltd. 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 int…

Kptcl Empls Co-Op Cr. Soc, Belagavi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

The appeal of the assessee stands ALLOWED

ITA 113/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2020-21 Kptcl Employee’S Credit Co-Operative Society, Ltd. 01, Opp. Jnmc College, Nehru Nagar, Belgavi-590010 Pan:Aagfk2092Q . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Ashok Mudnur [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…ding order of Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) to be erroneous which was passed by Assessing Officer after due verification of the issue and consideration of explanation filed. We draw support from the case Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Max India India Ltd (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) following the Supreme Court order of Malabar Industrial Co Ltd Vs CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83. Wherein it was held " If two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one view with which the commissioner does not ITAT-Panaji Page 4 of 16 KPTCL Employee Credit Co-operative Society, Ltd. Vs. PCIT ITA No.113/PAN/2025, AY: 2020-21 agree,…

Shri Basaveshwar Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mudalagi vs. The Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

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

ITA 78/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.78/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2020-21) Shri Basaveshwar Urban Vs. Pr.Cit, Co_Op Credit Society C.R.Building, Mudalagi, Navanagar, Belagavi-591312, Hubli-580025, Karnataka Karnataka. Pan .No.Aaaas6800M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Saidappa Gadadi.Ar Revenue By Shri.Captain Pradeep Arya.Cit.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 11.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 14.08.2025 Pronouncement Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit) Hubli Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assesse Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Revision Order Passed By The Pr.Cit Set Aside The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Is A Cooperative Credit Society & Has Filed The Return Of Income For The A.Y 2020-21 On 04.01.2021 Disclosing A Total Income Of

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…Shri. Basaveshwar Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. The principle which has been laid down in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) has been followed and explained in a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282.” 9. Further In the case of Nagesh Knitwears P Ltd (2012)(345 ITR 135), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has elucidated and explained the scope of the provisions of sec. 263 of the Act and the same has been extracted by the Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs. Goetze (India) Ltd (361 ITR 505) as under:- “Thus, in cases of wrong opinion or finding…

The Dhanashree Multipurpose Co-Operative Society Limited, Belgaum vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

The appeal of the assessee stands ALLOWED

ITA 119/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2020-21 The Dhanashree Multipurpose Co-Operative Society, Ltd. 722/1, Angol Road, Vidya Nagar, Belgaum-590006 Pan:Aaaad0350R . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(d)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2020-21 The Dhanashree Multipurpose Co-operative Society, Ltd. 722/1, Angol Road, Vidya Nagar, Belgaum-590006 PAN:AAAAD0350R . . . . . . . Appellant V/s Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee by : Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by : Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’] Date of conclusive Hearing : 11/08/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 14/08/2025 ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; The pre…