Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central) Ludhiana v. Max India Limited

15 SCC 401Reported decision2007#19298 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 69Section 69B

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central) Ludhiana v. Max India Limited

AKASHDEEP CLOTH CENTRE,KANNAD vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, NASHIK

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 959/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: S/Shri Shubham N. Rathi and Ashutosh DhootFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69Section 69B

…of the assessee and only added Rs.1,42,715/- to the business income of the assessee for the year under consideration. 16. In this regard, decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central) Ludhiana v. Max India Limited (2007) 15 SCC 401/[2008] 166 Tax 188/295 ITR 282 (SC) may be noticed herein profitably in which their Lordships have held that every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. When the Income Tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in lo…

MANMANDIR CLOTH CENTRE,KANNAD vs. PCIT, NASHIK

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1012/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: S/Shri Shubham N. Rathi and Ashutosh DhootFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69Section 69B

…of the assessee and only added Rs.1,42,715/- to the business income of the assessee for the year under consideration. 16. In this regard, decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central) Ludhiana v. Max India Limited (2007) 15 SCC 401/[2008] 166 Tax 188/295 ITR 282 (SC) may be noticed herein profitably in which their Lordships have held that every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. When the Income Tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in lo…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4 vs. MS MOHAK REAL ESTATE PVT LTD

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/730/2023HC Delhi08 Dec 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 263Section 263(1)Section 37Section 57

…sessee in reply to the show-cause notice. 4. At this stage, it would be apposite to briefly refer to the legal position pertaining to Section 263 of the Act. 4.1 In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Ludhiana vs Max India Ltd., (2007) 15 SCC 401, the Supreme Court referred to its earlier judgment in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Limited vs CIT, (2002) 2 SCC 718 and reiterated that every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of revenue within the meaning of Section 263 of the Act; and that where…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. PAWA INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.

ITA - 462 / 2022HC Delhi18 Nov 2022
Section 143(3)Section 263

…07:22 Signature Not Verified 2022/DHC/005672 ITA 462/2022 Page 4 of 10 no two plausible and legally sustainable views permissible and therefore, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central) Ludhiana v. Max India Limited, (2007) 15 SCC 401, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. He states that the ITAT failed to appreciate that since the property was not held by the Assessee as a Capital Asset, the Assessee is not entitled for a claim of indexation and therefore, the AO erred in accepting the ITR filed by the Assessee and the same has resulted in the passing of the erro…

Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central) Ludhiana v. Max India Limited (15 SCC 401) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax