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.

Bharatkumar Kalyanjibhai Bhindi, Junagadh vs. PCIT, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

ITA 312/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhasr. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 324/Rjt/2024 322/Rjt/2024 323/Rjt/2024 312/Rjt/2024 326/Rjt/2024 327/Rjt/2024 329/Rjt/2024 331/Rjt/2024 335/Rjt/2024 371/Rjt/2024

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

…O., which is not permissible. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ranka Jewellers vs. Addl. CIT (328 ITR 148) relying on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd. [(2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC)], has held that once the issue was considered by the A.O., the remedy of the revenue could not lie in invoking of the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act. Therefore, the order of the Ld. C.I.T. was definitely outside the purview of section 263 of the Act. As noted above, the exercise aimed at ascertaining the correct income of the assessee has…

Arun Bose, Idukki vs. Income Tax Officer, Thodupuzha

In the result, the appeal filed by the as stands allowed

ITA 381/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Arun Bose .......... Appellant Pulparambil House, Rajakumari Aruvilanchal P.O., Idukki 685619 [Pan: Bdppp4937G] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps .......... Respondent Mahima Towers, Temple Road, Thodupuzha Appellant By: Shri Mathew Joseph, Ca Respondent By: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 69ASection 69C

…nditions 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 4 Arun Bose 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”. 7. In the present case, the Pr. CIT sought to revise the assessment solely on the ground that the enti…

Jsw Steel Coated Products Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Mumbai - 5, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3113/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampura, CIT D/R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…on that the Tribunal did not approve his action and set aside his order. We do not find any infirmity in the above conclusion of the Tribunal.” I.T.A. No. 3113/Mum/2025 6 11. 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…

M/S Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Cricle -Ltu 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2956/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…d so and it is for that reason that the Tribunal did not approve his action and set aside his order. We do not find any infirmity in the above conclusion of the Tribunal.” 15. 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…

Polynova Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2982/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Polynova Industries Limited Dcit 14(1)(1) 159, Cst Road, Kalina, Aayakar Bhavan,4Th Floor, Santacruz East, Vs. Mumbai- 400001 Mumbai- 400098 Pan No. Aabcl 0864 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajan Vora &For Respondent: Mr. R. A. Dhyani, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

…ch view, which finds support in judicial precedents, it cannot be held that the assessment order is erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. In this context, reference may be made to the decision of this Court in CIT v. Max India Ltd. [(2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC)], wherein it was authoritatively laid down that where two views are reasonably possible on a particular issue, and the Assessing Officer has taken one such view, the mere preference of the Commissioner for an alternative interpretation does not justify the invocation of revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. 6.8 Accordingly,…

Yashomandir Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 27, Mumbai, Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5597/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Kale, CAFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr.DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)

…nder section 263 is that the order sought to be revised must be erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Following the judgments of the Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial 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 AO has adopted one of the courses permissible in law or where two views are possible and the AO has taken one of the views with which the Principle Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, unless the view…

Siddharth Colorchem Private Limited, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhawan

ITA 2903/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Siddharth Colorchem Pvt. Ltd., Dcit 3(3)(1), 121 Atanta, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400021. Vs. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabcs 7709 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Prateek Jain Revenue By : Mr. R.A. Dhyani, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Prateek JainFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR
Section 135Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 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. Siddharth Colorchem Pvt. Ltd. 9 6.3 Accordingly, we are of the view that the assessment order in question cannot be held to be erroneous and…

Muthoot Insurance Brokers (P) Ltd, Cochin vs. DCIT, Corp. Cir-1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 377/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Muthoot Insurance Brokers (P) Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Kurian Towers, Banerji Road Cochin 682018 [Pan: Aabce1076A] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Thomson Thomas, Ca Respondent By: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Thomson Thomas, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36A

…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. Now, we shall examine the facts of the present case in order to find out whether the issue of write…

Alliance Nirmaan Limited, Bareilly vs. PCIT, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 119/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(3)Section 263

…led from the assessee's side: 1. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) 2. CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bombay) 3. CIT vs. Land Infrastructure Development Projects Ltd. [2013] 357 ITR 763 (Mad) 4. CIT vs. MAX India Limited [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) 5. CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del) 6. Income Tax Officer vs. Dg. Housing Projects Ltd., I.T.A. No.179/2011-HC of Delhi -date of order 01/03/2012 343 ITR 329 (Del) 7. CIT vs. Vikas Polymers [2010] 194 Taxman 57 (Delhi High Court) 8. Haryana Coach Body Builders [2006] 10 SOT 736 (Delhi) 9. CIT vs. Mohd. Ishaq Mohd. Gulam 276 ITR 13…

Anand Boddapaty, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 375/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA Kumar Pal TatedFor Respondent: Sri Narender Kumar Naik
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 45Section 54Section 54F

…ial to the interest of the Revenue, the 8 ITA.No.375/Hyd./2025 PCIT cannot have any jurisdiction to set-aside the assessment order. Learned Counsel for the Assessee further referring to decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs., Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282 (SC) submitted that, although, the title of the property cannot be transferred without any valid registered document, but, when it comes to the beneficial provision of claiming exemption u/sec.54 of the Act, there is no requirement of registration and if assessee has paid entire consideration for purchase of new house property, then, the deductio…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Te Connectivity India Pvt. Ltd

Accordingly dispose of the appeal as allowed

ITA/53/2024HC Karnataka05 Jun 2025

Bench: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,S RACHAIAH

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 260ASection 263Section 40

…- 1 - ITA No.53 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR V KAMESWAR RAO, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ITA NO. 53 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1 . THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095. 2 . THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, PRESENT ADDRESS, DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SUSHAL TIWARI N, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. TE C…

Actionware India Private Limited, Rajkot vs. The PCIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 317/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.317/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15 Actionware India Pvt. Ltd. The Pr.Cit-1 बनाम 316, Sagar Arcade Rajkot. Gandal Road Vs. Opp: Union Bank Of India Rajkot 360 002 (Gujarat) Pan : Aacck 3445 Q (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 263Section 68

…revenue. As per the said section and various judicial precedents including those of Hon’ble Actionware India P Ltd ITA No.317 /RJT/2024 (AY : 2014-15) 14 Apex Court in the cases of Malabal Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (243 ITR 83) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282), in order to invoke provisions of section 263 of the Act, twin conditions need to be satisfied exhaustively, viz. first, the order sought to be revised should be erroneous and secondly, it should be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Such occasions arise when the A.O. while passing assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act, did not have c…

Devprabha Construction Private Ltd., Dhanbad vs. PCIT, Dhanbad

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 27/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Devprabha Construction Private Ltd., P.C.I.T., Dev Villa, Behind Radha Swamy Arcade, Dhanbad, Vs. Saraidhela, Dhanbad-828127. Aayakar Bhawan, Luby Pan No. Aaecb 2652 A Circular Road, Dhanbad-826001 (Jharkhand) Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Virtual Hearing) Devprabha Construction Private Ltd., P.C.I.T., Dev Villa, Behind Radha Swamy Arcade, Dhanbad, Vs. Saraidhela, Dhanbad-828127. Aayakar Bhawan, Luby PAN No. AAECB 2652 A Circular Road, Dhanbad-826001 (Jharkhand) Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv. Department represented by Shri Shadab Ahmed, CIT-DR Date of hearing 30/04/2025 Date of pronouncement 30/05/2025 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. This appeal by…

Indian Medical Association Kerala State Branch, Thiruvananthapuram vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Thiruvananthapuram

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

ITA 542/COCH/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 May 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 143(3)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”. 9. Now we proceed to examine the present case, whether the AO had examined the issue sought to be revis…

Ajay Kumar, Ghaziabad vs. Pr. CIT (Central), Meerut

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 733/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.733/Del/2021, A.Y. 2016-17 Sh. Ajay Kumar Pr. Commissioner of C/O RRA TAXINDIA Income Tax (Central), D-28, South Extension, Part-1, Vs. Kanpur New Delhi-110049 PAN: ASPPK4845E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Sh. Somil Agarwal, Advocate Respondent by Mr. Javed Akhtar, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 03/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement 30/05/2025 ORDER PER AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM This appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Ye…

Balubhai Kikabhai Patel, Valsad vs. Principal Commisioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 461/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.461/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Balubhhai Kikabhai Patel Principal Commissioner Of बनाम/ Nahuli, Karmbele, Umbergon, Income-Tax, Valsad, Room No. Vs. Surat-396 105 301, 3Rd Floor, Palak Arcade, Shanti Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-396 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Akqpp 2563 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 13/03/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 28/05/2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68

…d (ii) it should be prejudicial to the interests of revenue. These conditions are conjuctive. 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 case was selected for scrutiny on the issue of agricultural income. The AO has issued notices u/s 143(2) r.w.s. 142(1) on different occasions calling for various d…

Sh. Sanjeev Garg, Panchkula vs. Pr. C.I.T., Panchkula

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 365/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 365/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Sanjeev Garg, Vs The Pcit, House No. 77, Sector 4, Panchkula. Panchkula. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Afopg5637A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 127Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…of the AO is erroneous and has caused a prejudice to the interests of the Revenue. If any single limb of these conditions is absent, then no action u/s A.Y.2017-18 20 263 can be taken. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Max India Ltd. reported in 295 ITR 282 has reiterated this position of law that on fulfilment of twin conditions, i.e. error committed by the AO which has caused prejudice to the interests of the revenue, only then the order u/s 263 can be passed. This aspect can always be examined by an Appellate Authority against an order passed u/s 263. The position of law was also explained by the…

Himmatlal Kanhaiyalal Jain, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-41, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 102/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhujhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri. Biswanath Das-CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

…Officer will not certainly justify exercise of his powers under section 263." b. Grasim Industries Ltd vs, CIT 188 Taxman 327 (Bom-HC) "Following the judgments of the Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd.'s case (supra) and CIT y. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282, 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 revenue, unless the view t…

Dlf Home Developers Limited, New Delhi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-1, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2585/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Dlf Home Developers Limited, Vs Pr.Cit, 9Th Floor, Dlf Centre, Sansad Delhi-1, Marg, New Delhi-110001. New Delhi Pan-Aaccd0037H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.S.Singhvi, Ca & Shri Satyajeet Goel, Ca Respondent By Shri Surender Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2025

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ITA No.2585/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “B” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2019-20] DLF Home Developers Limited, vs Pr.CIT, 9th Floor, DLF Centre, Sansad Delhi-1, Marg, New Delhi-110001. New Delhi PAN-AACCD0037H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri R.S.Singhvi, CA & Shri Satyajeet Goel, CA Respondent by Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR Date of Hearing 19.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 23.05.2025 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM : The present appeal has been filed by the assessee seeking to assail the order d…

Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Mumbai 3, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2798/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai(Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara(Am) Small Industries Development Principal Bank Of India Commissioner Of I.T. Swavalamban Bhavan, C-11 Vs. Room No. 612, 6Th G Block, Bandra Kurala Floor, Aayakar Complex, Bandra East Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 051. Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aabcs3480N Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Chhajed &
Section 263Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…the Act. 6. The Ld. AR of the appellant has submitted that in order to invoke the revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Malabar Industrial Company Vs. Ld. CIT(A) 243 ITR 83 and M/s. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282, laid down the law that twin conditions of “erroneous” and “prejudicial to interest of Revenue”, should be fulfilled. In other words, the assessing officer should have committed an “error” and that error should consequently result in prejudice to the interest of Revenue and then only Revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act can be in…