1. Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. v. CIT

332 ITR 231High Court2011#5038 most cited

What is 1. Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

An Assessing Officer's order is not erroneous, in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, solely because the Principal Commissioner disagrees with the AO's conscious decision made after due verification.

23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,418 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. v. CIT · Section 263 · revisionary powers · prejudicial to the interest of revenue · Assessing Officer · conscious decision · due verification · Principal Commissioner

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 148B

Issues it is cited on

section 8d(2)(ii)ready for usesection 35(1)(i)section 35(1)(iv)section 35(1)(ii)section 45(5)(b)r&d expendituresection 35(1)section 23(2)section 244section 145a(b)inadequate enquiry

Judgments citing 1. Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. v. CIT

Sh. Gaurav Bhatia, Kotdwar vs. CIT, Dehradun

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

ITA 1730/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Miss S. Kambleassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Gaurav Bhatia Vs. The Cit Bhatia Bhawan, Sitapur Devi Road Dehradun Kotdwar (Applicant) (Respondent) (Pan: Afypb 4513 J)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…IT 60 DTR 240 [DEL] d) Dy. CIT Vs. Insilco Ltd 59 DTR 364 [DEL] e) CIT Vs. Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 [DEL] f) Vashti Management Services Vs. ITO 137 TTJ 35 [DEL] g) Raj Shyama Construction P. Ltd Vs. ACIT 135 TTJ 33 [DEL] h) CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd 332 ITR 231 [DEL] i) CIT Vs. Hindustan Coco Cola Beverages P. Ltd 331 ITR 192 [DEL] 12. He submitted that when two views are possible and the A.O has taken one of the possible view, then also the ld. CIT cannot invoke jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. He accordingly submitted that since the A.O has made adequate enquiries to his satisfaction and merely becau…

Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT-03, New Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2813/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Smt. Beena A. Pillaii.T.A. No. 2813/Del/2016 (Assessment Year 2011-12)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI L. P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2813/Del/2016 (Assessment Year 2011-12) Delhi Airport Metro Pr. CIT VS. Express Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. Reliance Center Maharaja Ranjit Singh Marg, New Delhi GIR/PAN : AAAFE2646N (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. Ms. Deepshree Raw, Adv. Respondent by : Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT (DR). Date of hearing : 02.01.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 12.01.2017 ORDER PER BEENA A. PILLAI, JM: 1. The present appeal has b…

M/S. Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Ltd., Hisar vs. ACIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2560/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2009-10 Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 168, Delhi Rod, Sector 27-28, Hisar. Hisar. (Pan: Aaics9088H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Shri Ashish Kumar, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Pankaj Vidharthi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Vidharthi, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 80I

…view, the CIT cannot sit over the judgment of the AO. This was held by the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC). Similar view has been taken by Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Kelvinator India Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 231 (Del). The Ld. AR submitted that the order u/s 263 being bad in law deserved to be quashed. 9. The Ld. DR, while supporting and defending the order of the Ld. CIT, submitted that there was no application of mind by the A.O and that the A.O had not conducted proper enquiries before allowing the claim of deduction. He submitted that the Ld.CIT…