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.

Bhandari Associates, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 2, Pune

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

ITA 1227/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora and Ms. Sampada S IngaleFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…uring assessment proceedings. On being satisfied that major portion of it was not a capital expenditure, only disallowed sum of Rs.17.98 lakhs as capital expenditure. The Tribunal while relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in “CIT Vs. Max India Ltd., (295 ITR 282)” held that it is settled principle of law that if after examining the details the Assessing Officer has taken a view, which is a possible view then it cannot be treated that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 7. The grievance of the Revenue is that the Assessment Order dated 24.…

Sukhraj Singh and Company, Moga vs. The PCIT-I, Ludhiana

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 553/CHANDI/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Aug 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (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. 10. In the case of Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108),…

Children Welfare Trust (Regd), Faridabad vs. CIT Exemption, Chandigarh

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3637/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 3637/Del/2024 (A.Y 2016-17) Children Welfare Trust (Regd) Vs National Faceless C/O. Gita Balniketan Senior Assessment Centre, Secondary School, 3-E, Nit, Delhi (Nafac) Faridabad Delhi Pan: Aabtc6957B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Pavan Ved, Adv, Shri Mohit Gupta, Ca, Sh. Mirza, Ca & Shri Sarthakkh Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By Ms.Pooja Swaroop, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2025

Section 11(6)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…1 ITA No. 3637/Del/2024 Children Welfare Trust Vs. CIT(E) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI [ DELHI BENCH : “B” NEW DELHI] BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3637/DEL/2024 (A.Y 2016-17) Children Welfare Trust (Regd) Vs National Faceless C/o. Gita BalNiketan Senior Assessment Centre, Secondary School, 3-E, NIT, Delhi (NaFAC) Faridabad Delhi PAN: AABTC6957B Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Pavan Ved, Adv, Shri Mohit Gupta, CA, Sh. Mirza, CA and Shri Sarthakkh Aggarwal, CA Revenue by Ms.Pooja Swaroop, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 24/07/…

Shri Upasani Kanyakumari Sansthan, Rahata vs. ITO Exemption Ward 1(1), Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1456/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Chinmay PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1456/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Upasani Kanyakumari Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sansthan, Exemption Ward-1(1), At Sakori, A/P. Sakuri, Nashik Rahata, Ahmednagar-423107 Maharashtra PAN : AACTS9493B Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Chinmay Pathak Respondent by : Shri Amit Bobde Date of hearing : 17.07.2025 Date of pronouncement : 06.08.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal at the instan…

Podduturi Rajashekhar Reddy, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

ITA 739/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 197Section 263Section 270ASection 270A(9)

…d as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the Income Tax Officer is unsustainable in law. The aforesaid view was thereafter reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 213 CTR 266 (SC). Once again, it was observed that where two views are possible and the Income-Tax Officer has taken one of 16 Podduturi Rajasekhar Reddy the view with which the Commissioner does not 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…

Ravi Dyeware Company Private Limited, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. DCIT- 3(3)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhawan

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2900/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Girish Agrawalravi Dyeware Co. Pvt Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 3(3)(1) 121 Atlanta, Vs Marg Aayakar Bhavan Nariman Point, Mumbai – Mumbai. 400021. Pan/Gir No. Aaacr4665F (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

…revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act is not warranted. The view adopted by the Assessing Officer cannot be regarded as unsustainable in law merely because another authority holds a different opinion. Further, in CIT v. Max India Ltd. [(2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC)], it is held that where two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has adopted one of them, the revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised merely because the Commissioner prefers the other view. 6.3 Accordingly, we are of the view that the assessment order in question cannot be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of…

Kodiyil Muhammed Madani, Taliparamba vs. DCIT, Centralcircle 1, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 345/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

…e above two conditions are required to be satisfied cumulatively. References in this regard can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC) and in the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282 (SC). The error in the assessment order should be one that it is not debatable or plausible view. In a case where the Assessing Officer examined the claim, took one of the plausible views, the assessment order cannot be termed as an “erroneous”. 15. In the background of above legal position, now we shall proceed to examine the facts of the prese…

Kodiyil Muhammed Madani, Taliparamba vs. DCIT, Centralcircle 1, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 344/COCH/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

…e above two conditions are required to be satisfied cumulatively. References in this regard can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC) and in the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282 (SC). The error in the assessment order should be one that it is not debatable or plausible view. In a case where the Assessing Officer examined the claim, took one of the plausible views, the assessment order cannot be termed as an “erroneous”. 15. In the background of above legal position, now we shall proceed to examine the facts of the prese…

Kodiyil Muhammed Madani, Taliparamba vs. DCIT, Centralcircle 1, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 343/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

…e above two conditions are required to be satisfied cumulatively. References in this regard can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC) and in the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282 (SC). The error in the assessment order should be one that it is not debatable or plausible view. In a case where the Assessing Officer examined the claim, took one of the plausible views, the assessment order cannot be termed as an “erroneous”. 15. In the background of above legal position, now we shall proceed to examine the facts of the prese…

Kodiyil Muhammed Madani, Taliparamba vs. DCIT, Centralcircle 1, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 342/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

…e above two conditions are required to be satisfied cumulatively. References in this regard can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC) and in the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282 (SC). The error in the assessment order should be one that it is not debatable or plausible view. In a case where the Assessing Officer examined the claim, took one of the plausible views, the assessment order cannot be termed as an “erroneous”. 15. In the background of above legal position, now we shall proceed to examine the facts of the prese…

Kodiyil Muhammed Madani, Taliparamba vs. DCIT, Centralcircle 1, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 341/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

…e above two conditions are required to be satisfied cumulatively. References in this regard can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC) and in the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282 (SC). The error in the assessment order should be one that it is not debatable or plausible view. In a case where the Assessing Officer examined the claim, took one of the plausible views, the assessment order cannot be termed as an “erroneous”. 15. In the background of above legal position, now we shall proceed to examine the facts of the prese…

Keeran Muhammed Basheer, Kannur vs. DCIT, Centralcircle 1, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 340/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

…e above two conditions are required to be satisfied cumulatively. References in this regard can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC) and in the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282 (SC). The error in the assessment order should be one that it is not debatable or plausible view. In a case where the Assessing Officer examined the claim, took one of the plausible views, the assessment order cannot be termed as an “erroneous”. 15. In the background of above legal position, now we shall proceed to examine the facts of the prese…

Ravinder Singh, Khanna, Ludhiana vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ludhiana

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 558/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 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. 8. Therefore, on the given facts, the impugned revisi…

Om Parkash Dahiya, Chandigarh vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 486/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: investigating officer of Enforcement Directorate, the assessee admitted to have made payment of Rs.60 Lacs in cash during FYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 which was not retracted till date. The issue was to examine the sources of payments made. The assessee made payment of Rs.45 Lacs to M/s United Engineers Construction Co. during this year. However, Ld. AO did not make any enquiry / examination with respect to sources of cash payments and genuineness and creditworthiness of alleged cash flow which

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (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. 8. Therefore, on the given facts, the impugned revisi…

Indur Thanwerdas Dadlani, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax PCIT, Mumbai-42, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed without any order as to cost

ITA 2476/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarindur Thanwerdas Dadlani Vs. Pr. Cit Flat No. 4604, The Imperial Mumbai – 42 Towers, Mp Mill Compound, Room No. 741, Aayakar Bb Nakashe Marg, Mardeo, Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai – 400034. Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Aacpd5262D (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 57Section 74

…y the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. . . ." (p. 88) The principle which has been laid down in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd.'s case (supra) has been followed and explained in a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 2822 while interpreting the provisions of section 80HHC(3), the Supreme Court noted that the statutory provision had been amended eleven times and different views existed on the day when the Commissioner passed his order under section 263. The Court observed that "the mechanics of the section have become so complicated over the years that two views w…

Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Thiruvananthapuram vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (E), Kochi

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

ITA 387/COCH/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2021-22 Kerala Industrial Infrastructure .......... Appellant Development Corporation Sasthamangalam P.O.. Thiruvananthapuram 695010 [Pan: Aabck0384K] Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) , Kochi......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Rajeev Ca Respondent By: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

…e above two conditions are required to be satisfied cumulatively. References in this regard can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC) and in the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282 (SC). The error in the assessment order should be one that it is not debatable or plausible view. In a case where the Assessing Officer examined the claim took one of the plausible views, the assessment order cannot be termed as an “erroneous”. 8. In the present case it is the contention of the appellant that the AO, during the course of assessm…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Endurance Technologies Limited, Aurangabad

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

ITA 1682/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak and Abhay AvachatFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR and Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 43(1)

…of cost subsidy under the Govt. of Maharashtra under the Package Scheme Incentives-2007 referred has been made to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 243 ITR 83(SC) & in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282(SC) wherein it has been established that the cost subsidy is not deducted from the depreciation claimed. Since the revision order was declared as invalid, therefore, no changes must be made to the original Assessment Order passed by the AO." 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NF…

M/S.Mahogany Logistics Services Pvt. Ltd., Madurai vs. PCIT, Madurai-1

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

ITA 1631/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1631/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Mahogany Logistics Services Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax-1, 10, Jawahar Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai. Madurai 625 002. [Pan:Aafcd8781R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Madurai Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company [Earlier Known As M/S. Drsr Logistics Services Private Limited] Filed Its Return Of Income For The Ay 2018-19 Claiming Loss Of ₹.31,28,98,436/- Under 2

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 139(9)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 263Section 36Section 37Section 40

…sence of the two-fold conditions, in the order of the Assessing Officer, the revisionary powers conferred under section 263 of the Act cannot be exercised by the PCIT/CIT. He refers to decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. MAX India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC) and also in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC), submits, while referring to Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) and vehemently argues that if one of the two conditions above is absent, i.e., (i) if the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous, but, it is not prejudicial in the interest of Revenue or if it is no…

Sanjiv Soshil Mehta, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 5(2), Kautilya Bhavan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2096/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Income-tax – 1, Mumbai
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 90

…and set aside his order. We do not find any infirmity in the above conclusion of the Tribunal. आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL I.T.A. No. 2096/Mum/2025 12 10. 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…

Marathwada Nagari Sahakari Path Sanstha Maryadit, Kalyan vs. Assessing Officer, Ward 1(1), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3346/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Prabhash Shankarmarathwada Nagari Sahakari V/S. Assessing Officer, Ward – Path Sanstha Maryadit, बनाम 1(1), Mohan Plaza, Wayle Shop No. 06, 1St Floor, Nagar, Khadakpada, Kalyan Dhamnikar Plaza, Bhiwandi, – 421301, Maharashtra Thane – 421302, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaam9150E Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Sushant Alme, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT- DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…t under section 80P(2)(a)(i) by invoking the provision of section 80P(4).In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following decisions:  Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83(SC),  CIT vs. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC),  Quepem Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. vs. ACIT [2015] 377 ITR 272 (Bom. HC).  PCIT vs. Goa PWD Staff Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. [2016] 242 Taxman 0422 (Bom. HC.)  CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom.)  CIT vs. Jafari Momin Vikash Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. [2014] 362 ITR 331 (Guj. HC.  ACIT vs. Metrocity C…