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.

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 282)

Veej Company Sevakanchi Sahakari Path Sanstha Ltd., Kalyan vs. Assessing Officer, Ward 3(1), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3341/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Prabhash Shankarveej Company Sevakanchi V/S. Assessing Officer, Ward – Sahakari Path Sanstha बनाम 3(1), Rani Mansion, 2Nd Ltd.,Shramik Sahakar, Usha Floor, Kalyan Murbad Road, Sankul Valiper Road, Oak Thane - 421 301, Baug, Thane - 421301, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaam2266M 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)

…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…

Bharat Bijlee Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 6(1)(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1531/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…er fair value or actual cost, whether entire investments or only those investments earning exempt income to be considered are debatable. Following the judgments of the Supreme Court in MalabarIndustrial Co. Ltd.'s case (supra) and CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282/[2008] 166 Taxman 188, it is now a settled principle that where the Assessing Officer has adopted one of the courses permissible in law or where two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one of the views with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the reve…

Jashan Jewels Private Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT -5, Mumbai

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

ITA 2614/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jashan Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Pcit, Mumbai-5, 301-B Aman Chambers Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Premises Co. Soc. Ltd., Mama Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Paramand Marg, Opera House, Mumbai-400020. Girgaon, Mumbai-400 004. Pan No. Aabcj 7040 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Ishraq Contractor

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

…oneous. alternative view does not render the assessment erroneous. context, reference may be made to the decision of context, reference may be made to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India Ltd. CIT v. Max India Ltd. [(2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC)], where [(2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC)], wherein it is laid down that where two views are reasonably possible on a laid down that where two views are reasonably possible on a laid down that where two views are reasonably possible on a particular issue, and the Assessing Officer has taken one such view, particular issue, and the Assessing Officer h…

Jeevandeep Edumedia Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle CIT-6, Mumbai

In the result, the a In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands allowed

ITA 2517/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jeevandeep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit-6, 1St Floor, Sun Paradise Business 501,5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Plaza, Senapati Bapat Marg, Vs. Maharishi Karve Road, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aabcj 0180 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Parikh

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

…claim. The existence of contrary but plausible legal views fortifies the conclusion that the issue is debatable. In CIT v. Max fortifies the conclusion that the issue is debatable. In fortifies the conclusion that the issue is debatable. In India Ltd. [(2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC)], [(2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC)], Hon’ble Supreme Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where two views are reasonably possible and the Assessing that where two views are reasonably possible and the Assessing that where two views are reasonably possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one such view, the Commissioner cannot exercise Officer has take…

Kadungalloor Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.No.2165, Karumaloor vs. Income Tax Officer, Aluva

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 348/COCH/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

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

…be satisfied Kadungalloor Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. 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”. 11. In the present case, in the original assessment order passed by the AO deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i)…

Kadungalloor Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.No.863, Aluva vs. Income Tax Officer, Aluva

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 347/COCH/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

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

…be satisfied Kadungalloor Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. 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”. 11. In the present case, in the original assessment order passed by the AO deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i)…

Kadungalloor Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No.2165, Karumaloor vs. Income Tax Officer, Aluva

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 346/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

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

…be satisfied Kadungalloor Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. 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”. 11. In the present case, in the original assessment order passed by the AO deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i)…

Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The PCIT, Trivandrum

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 443/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year:2018-19 Kerala Transport Development Finance .......... Appellant Corporation Limited, Thiruvananthapuram. Pan: Aabck1318F Vs.

For Appellant: Smt. Anoopa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 32

…. References in this regard can be made to the decision 4 Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation Ltd vs. PCIT 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”. 9. In the present case, it is undisputed that the item sought to be revised ie., claim for depreciatio…

Rtv International, Solan vs. Pr.CIT, Shimla

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 131/CHANDI/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 131/Chandi/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S Rtv Vision Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Pr. Cit बनाम/ (Successor Of M/S Rtv International) Shimla. Plot No.G-97, Site-5, Upsidc Vs. Kasna Industrial Area, Greater Noida "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccr-4395-J / Aalfr-8106-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sameer Kapoor- Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15-07-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Assailing Proposed Revision Of The Order U/S 263 As Passed By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shimla (Pr. Cit) On 22-03-2019 Has Come Up For Hearing Pursuant To The Order Of Hon’Ble High Court Of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla In Ita No.01 Of 2025 Dated 28-05-2025. The Directions Of Hon’Ble Court Are As Under: - 3. In The Given Facts & Circumstances, We Deem It Appropriate To Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Set Aside Orders Dated

For Appellant: Shri Sameer Kapoor- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…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…

Sushil Mitruka, Siliguri vs. P.C.I.T., Siliguri

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 490/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…s been invoked invalidly which is against the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). 5 Sushil Mitruka ITA Nos. 487 to 490/Kol/2025 AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17 & 2018-19 8. The Ld. AR, thereafter, stated that investments made by the assessee in the property was duly shown in the books of account and same has not disputed by the Assessing Officer or the Ld. Pr. CIT and also the investment shown in the books of account on the cons…

Sushil Mitruka, Siliguri vs. P.C.I.T., Siliguri

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 489/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…s been invoked invalidly which is against the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). 5 Sushil Mitruka ITA Nos. 487 to 490/Kol/2025 AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17 & 2018-19 8. The Ld. AR, thereafter, stated that investments made by the assessee in the property was duly shown in the books of account and same has not disputed by the Assessing Officer or the Ld. Pr. CIT and also the investment shown in the books of account on the cons…

Sushil Mitruka, Siliguri vs. P.C.I.T., Siliguri

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 488/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…s been invoked invalidly which is against the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). 5 Sushil Mitruka ITA Nos. 487 to 490/Kol/2025 AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17 & 2018-19 8. The Ld. AR, thereafter, stated that investments made by the assessee in the property was duly shown in the books of account and same has not disputed by the Assessing Officer or the Ld. Pr. CIT and also the investment shown in the books of account on the cons…

Sushil Mitruka, Siliguri vs. P.C.I.T., Siliguri

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 487/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…s been invoked invalidly which is against the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). 5 Sushil Mitruka ITA Nos. 487 to 490/Kol/2025 AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17 & 2018-19 8. The Ld. AR, thereafter, stated that investments made by the assessee in the property was duly shown in the books of account and same has not disputed by the Assessing Officer or the Ld. Pr. CIT and also the investment shown in the books of account on the cons…

Yogeshkumar Harishbhai Mali, Surat vs. PCIT, Surat-1, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 420/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.420/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Yogeshkumar Harishbhai Mali, Principal Commissioner Of बनाम/ 117, Khambhati Panchni Waid Income-Tax, Surat-1, Income Tax Vs. Rustompura, Surat - 395002 Office, 123, 1Stfloor, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abdpm 3296 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (प्र"थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Aashish Pophare, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 04/06/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2025

Section 114BSection 115BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 69A

…ese conditions are ITA No.420/SRT/2024/AY.2014-15 Yogeshkumar Harishbhai Mali conjunctive. An order of assessment passed by the AO should not be interfered with only because another view is possible. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Max India Ltd. vs. CIT, 295 ITR 282 (SC) held that the Commissioner has to be satisfied of the twin conditions as stated above. If one of them is absent, recourse cannot be had to Section 263 of the Act. We find that the impugned issue of on-money receipt of Rs.40,00,000/- was considered by the AO at the time of re-assessment proceedings. He has duly examined the above issue by cal…

Bakeri Projects Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 954/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21 Bakeri Projects Pvt. Lt. The Dcit, Cir.(1)(1) 1St Floor, Sanskrut Vs. Ahmedabad. Old High Court Road Off: Ashram Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aagcb 1864 L (Applicant) (Responent)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, AR, and Shri Bharat Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…te that an assessment order cannot be termed “erroneous” merely because the PCIT forms a different opinion based on a reading of the ITA No.954 /Ahd/2025 return of income or its schedules. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India Ltd. [(2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC)] and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [(2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC)], two conditions must co-exist for invoking jurisdiction under section 263: (i) the assessment order must be erroneous, and (ii) such error must be prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The absence of either renders the assumption of jurisdiction invalid. In the present case,…