CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd.

253 ITR 791High Court2018#3783 most cited

What is CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. authority for?

An Assessing Officer cannot allow a claim for deduction that is raised afresh unless a revised return is filed. However, an assessee is not disabled from raising such a claim before appellate authorities if it was disallowed by the Assessing Officer for the technical reason of not filing a revised return.

32

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. · section 140a(1) · revised return · Assessing Officer · claim for deduction · appellate authorities · Goetze (India) Ltd. · NTPC Ltd.

Sections most often in play

Section 40A(7)Section 43BSection 37

Issues it is cited on

section 140a(1)section 215section 207section 2(43)section 262section 209section 2(1)section 208section 210section 115jaasection 140aminimum alternate tax

Judgments citing CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd.

M/s.V.R.Farms Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are dismissed

ITTA/272/2008HC Telangana28 Nov 2025

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

…Page No.16 of 44 interest under section 234B or 234C is not originally charged, the same can be corrected in proceedings under section 154 of the said Act. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the revenue on CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd: 253 ITR 791 (Ker) and Nicco Corporation Ltd v. CIT: 272 ITR 58 (Cal). 15. Lastly, it was argued that hardship or inequity is no ground for not charging interest under sections 234B and 234C before allowing MAT credit. It was contended that it is a well established principle that equity has no place in tax laws. It was therefore urged that the ques…

ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

ITA 475/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 40A(7)

…ay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders [2012] 349 ITR 336. (Bom) and National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC) even the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. (2018) 409 ITR 358 (Ker.) wherein it has been held as under:- “14. On the questions of law, we are of the opinion that the Assessing Officer cannot allow a claim for deduction, afresh raised; unless there is a revised return made in accordance with the act as has been held in Goetze (India) Ltd.'s case (supra) Merely for reason that the Assessing Officer had disal…

ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

ITA 474/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 40A(7)

…ay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders [2012] 349 ITR 336. (Bom) and National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC) even the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. (2018) 409 ITR 358 (Ker.) wherein it has been held as under:- “14. On the questions of law, we are of the opinion that the Assessing Officer cannot allow a claim for deduction, afresh raised; unless there is a revised return made in accordance with the act as has been held in Goetze (India) Ltd.'s case (supra) Merely for reason that the Assessing Officer had disal…

SRI. B. RUDRAGOUDA,BELLARY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 315/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 37Section 37(1)

…r wrong head of income. For this proposition, the assessee also placed reliance on the following decisions:- Raghavan Nair v. ACIT, 402 ITR 400 (Ker) Wipro Ltd. v. DCIT in ITA No.879/2008 dated 25.3.2015 Karnataka High Court CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd., 409 ITR 358 (Ker) Satish S. Prabhu v. ACIT 114 taxmann.com 88 (Mum. Trib) CIT v. Sam Global Securities Ltd., 360 ITR 682 (Del) EBR Enterprises v. UOI, 415 ITR 139 (Bom) CIT v. Nashik Road Deolali Vyapaari Sah. Bank Ltd., 76 taxmann.com 78 (Bom) DCIT v. CMS Securities Ltd. 82 taxmann.com 319 (Mum) 69. The ld. AR submitted that there is no bar under the statu…

SRI. B. RUDRAGOUDA,BELLARY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 314/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 37Section 37(1)

…r wrong head of income. For this proposition, the assessee also placed reliance on the following decisions:- Raghavan Nair v. ACIT, 402 ITR 400 (Ker) Wipro Ltd. v. DCIT in ITA No.879/2008 dated 25.3.2015 Karnataka High Court CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd., 409 ITR 358 (Ker) Satish S. Prabhu v. ACIT 114 taxmann.com 88 (Mum. Trib) CIT v. Sam Global Securities Ltd., 360 ITR 682 (Del) EBR Enterprises v. UOI, 415 ITR 139 (Bom) CIT v. Nashik Road Deolali Vyapaari Sah. Bank Ltd., 76 taxmann.com 78 (Bom) DCIT v. CMS Securities Ltd. 82 taxmann.com 319 (Mum) 69. The ld. AR submitted that there is no bar under the statu…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-1 vs. ALLIED STRIPS LTD

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/791/2007HC Delhi06 Feb 2009

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

…34C is not originally charged, the same can be corrected in proceedings under section 154 of the said Act. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the revenue on CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd: 253 ITR 791 (Ker) and Nicco Corporation Ltd v. CIT: 272 ITR 58 (Cal). 15. Lastly, it was argued that hardship or inequity is no ground for not charging interest under sections 234B and 234C before allowing MAT credit. It was contended that it is a well established principle that equity has no place in tax laws. It was therefore urged that the questions be answered in favour of the revenue and the ap…

CIT vs. NEGOLICE INDIA PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/986/2007HC Delhi06 Feb 2009

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

…Page No.16 of 44 interest under section 234B or 234C is not originally charged, the same can be corrected in proceedings under section 154 of the said Act. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the revenue on CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd: 253 ITR 791 (Ker) and Nicco Corporation Ltd v. CIT: 272 ITR 58 (Cal). 15. Lastly, it was argued that hardship or inequity is no ground for not charging interest under sections 234B and 234C before allowing MAT credit. It was contended that it is a well established principle that equity has no place in tax laws. It was therefore urged that the ques…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. AJANTA OFFSET & PACKAGING LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/476/2008HC Delhi06 Feb 2009

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

…Page No.16 of 44 interest under section 234B or 234C is not originally charged, the same can be corrected in proceedings under section 154 of the said Act. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the revenue on CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd: 253 ITR 791 (Ker) and Nicco Corporation Ltd v. CIT: 272 ITR 58 (Cal). 15. Lastly, it was argued that hardship or inequity is no ground for not charging interest under sections 234B and 234C before allowing MAT credit. It was contended that it is a well established principle that equity has no place in tax laws. It was therefore urged that the ques…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SURYA ROSHNI LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/802/2008HC Delhi06 Feb 2009

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

…Page No.16 of 44 interest under section 234B or 234C is not originally charged, the same can be corrected in proceedings under section 154 of the said Act. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the revenue on CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd: 253 ITR 791 (Ker) and Nicco Corporation Ltd v. CIT: 272 ITR 58 (Cal). 15. Lastly, it was argued that hardship or inequity is no ground for not charging interest under sections 234B and 234C before allowing MAT credit. It was contended that it is a well established principle that equity has no place in tax laws. It was therefore urged that the ques…

CIT vs. OCL INDIA LTD

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/1063/2007HC Delhi06 Feb 2009

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

…Page No.16 of 44 interest under section 234B or 234C is not originally charged, the same can be corrected in proceedings under section 154 of the said Act. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the revenue on CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd: 253 ITR 791 (Ker) and Nicco Corporation Ltd v. CIT: 272 ITR 58 (Cal). 15. Lastly, it was argued that hardship or inequity is no ground for not charging interest under sections 234B and 234C before allowing MAT credit. It was contended that it is a well established principle that equity has no place in tax laws. It was therefore urged that the ques…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. NEHRU PLACE HOTELS LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/546/2008HC Delhi06 Feb 2009

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

…Page No.16 of 44 interest under section 234B or 234C is not originally charged, the same can be corrected in proceedings under section 154 of the said Act. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the revenue on CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd: 253 ITR 791 (Ker) and Nicco Corporation Ltd v. CIT: 272 ITR 58 (Cal). 15. Lastly, it was argued that hardship or inequity is no ground for not charging interest under sections 234B and 234C before allowing MAT credit. It was contended that it is a well established principle that equity has no place in tax laws. It was therefore urged that the ques…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MITSUBISHI CORPORATION INDIA P

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/969/2007HC Delhi06 Feb 2009

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

…34C is not originally charged, the same can be corrected in proceedings under section 154 of the said Act. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the revenue on CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd: 253 ITR 791 (Ker) and Nicco Corporation Ltd v. CIT: 272 ITR 58 (Cal). 15. Lastly, it was argued that hardship or inequity is no ground for not charging interest under sections 234B and 234C before allowing MAT credit. It was contended that it is a well established principle that equity has no place in tax laws. It was therefore urged that the questions be answered in favour of the revenue and the ap…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V vs. M/S NESTLE INDIA LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/1474/2006HC Delhi06 Feb 2009

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

…34C is not originally charged, the same can be corrected in proceedings under section 154 of the said Act. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the revenue on CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd: 253 ITR 791 (Ker) and Nicco Corporation Ltd v. CIT: 272 ITR 58 (Cal). 15. Lastly, it was argued that hardship or inequity is no ground for not charging interest under sections 234B and 234C before allowing MAT credit. It was contended that it is a well established principle that equity has no place in tax laws. It was therefore urged that the questions be answered in favour of the revenue and the ap…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI III vs. SAMTEL COLOR LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/701/2008HC Delhi06 Feb 2009

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

…34C is not originally charged, the same can be corrected in proceedings under section 154 of the said Act. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the revenue on CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd: 253 ITR 791 (Ker) and Nicco Corporation Ltd v. CIT: 272 ITR 58 (Cal). 15. Lastly, it was argued that hardship or inequity is no ground for not charging interest under sections 234B and 234C before allowing MAT credit. It was contended that it is a well established principle that equity has no place in tax laws. It was therefore urged that the questions be answered in favour of the revenue and the ap…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. INDRAPRASTHA MEDICAL CORPORATION LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/344/2008HC Delhi06 Feb 2009

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

…34C is not originally charged, the same can be corrected in proceedings under section 154 of the said Act. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the revenue on CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd: 253 ITR 791 (Ker) and Nicco Corporation Ltd v. CIT: 272 ITR 58 (Cal). 15. Lastly, it was argued that hardship or inequity is no ground for not charging interest under sections 234B and 234C before allowing MAT credit. It was contended that it is a well established principle that equity has no place in tax laws. It was therefore urged that the questions be answered in favour of the revenue and the ap…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S JINDAL EXPORTS LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/402/2005HC Delhi06 Feb 2009

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

…34C is not originally charged, the same can be corrected in proceedings under section 154 of the said Act. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the revenue on CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd: 253 ITR 791 (Ker) and Nicco Corporation Ltd v. CIT: 272 ITR 58 (Cal). 15. Lastly, it was argued that hardship or inequity is no ground for not charging interest under sections 234B and 234C before allowing MAT credit. It was contended that it is a well established principle that equity has no place in tax laws. It was therefore urged that the questions be answered in favour of the revenue and the ap…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI I vs. ANANT RAJ INDUSTRIES P. LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

ITA - 456 / 2008HC Delhi06 Feb 2009

…o 2009:DHC:430-DB interest under section 234B or 234C is not originally charged, the same can be corrected in proceedings under section 154 of the said Act. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the revenue on CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd: 253 ITR 791 (Ker) and Nicco Corporation Ltd v. CIT: 272 ITR 58 (Cal). 15. Lastly, it was argued that hardship or inequity is no ground for not charging interest under sections 234B and 234C before allowing MAT credit. It was contended that it is a well established principle that equity has no place in tax laws. It was therefore urged that the ques…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. C.J.INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

ITA - 453 / 2008HC Delhi06 Feb 2009

…34C is not originally charged, the same can be corrected in proceedings under section 154 of the said Act. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the revenue on CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd: 253 ITR 791 (Ker) and Nicco Corporation Ltd v. CIT: 272 ITR 58 (Cal). 15. Lastly, it was argued that hardship or inequity is no ground for not charging interest under sections 234B and 234C before allowing MAT credit. It was contended that it is a well established principle that equity has no place in tax laws. It was therefore urged that the questions be answered in favour of the revenue and the ap…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI II vs. LEROY SOMER & CONTROLS INDIA P.LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

ITA - 407 / 2008HC Delhi06 Feb 2009

…34C is not originally charged, the same can be corrected in proceedings under section 154 of the said Act. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the revenue on CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd: 253 ITR 791 (Ker) and Nicco Corporation Ltd v. CIT: 272 ITR 58 (Cal). 15. Lastly, it was argued that hardship or inequity is no ground for not charging interest under sections 234B and 234C before allowing MAT credit. It was contended that it is a well established principle that equity has no place in tax laws. It was therefore urged that the questions be answered in favour of the revenue and the ap…

CIT vs. OCL INDIA LTD

The appeals are dismissed

ITA - 1063 / 2007HC Delhi06 Feb 2009

…34C is not originally charged, the same can be corrected in proceedings under section 154 of the said Act. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the revenue on CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd: 253 ITR 791 (Ker) and Nicco Corporation Ltd v. CIT: 272 ITR 58 (Cal). 15. Lastly, it was argued that hardship or inequity is no ground for not charging interest under sections 234B and 234C before allowing MAT credit. It was contended that it is a well established principle that equity has no place in tax laws. It was therefore urged that the questions be answered in favour of the revenue and the ap…

Showing 1–20 of 32 · Page 1 of 2