Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CIT

321 ITR 92High Court2010#480 most cited

What is Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

This case clarifies the scope of the Commissioner's revisional powers under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, holding that an assessment order can only be revised if it is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, echoing the principles laid down in Malabar Industrial.

194

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CIT · Grasim Industries 321 ITR 92 · Section 263 Income Tax Act · revision u/s 263 · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · scope of revisional powers · inadequate enquiry · non-application of mind · Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. · CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd · assessment order erroneous

Also reported as

188 Taxmann 32723 Taxmann.com 31

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 144BSection 148Section 10(37)Section 145A(b)

Issues it is cited on

malabar industrialinadequate enquiryrevision u/s 263prejudicial to interest of revenuelack of enquiryrevision under section 263section 263(1)non application of mindassessment order erroneouserroneous and prejudicialincome-tax officersection 244a

Judgments citing Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CIT

SH. RANDHIR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 494/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…(Del) CIT vs. DLF Power Ltd v) 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. vi) 323 ITR 632 (Bom) CIT vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. vii) 294 ITR 121 (Chennai) CIT vs. Mepco Industries Ltd. viii) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) CIT vs. Munjal Castings ix) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CIT x) 325 ITR 343 (P&H) CIT vs. Tek Chand Saini xi) 333 ITR 547 (Del) CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. xii) 263 ITR 255 (SC) CIT vs. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel Ltd. PROPOSITION IV: THAT IT IS NECESSARY FOR COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX TO POINT OUT THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AS TO HOW THE ORDER OF AO IS PREJUDICIA…

SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 488/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…(Del) CIT vs. DLF Power Ltd v) 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. vi) 323 ITR 632 (Bom) CIT vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. vii) 294 ITR 121 (Chennai) CIT vs. Mepco Industries Ltd. viii) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) CIT vs. Munjal Castings ix) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CIT x) 325 ITR 343 (P&H) CIT vs. Tek Chand Saini xi) 333 ITR 547 (Del) CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. xii) 263 ITR 255 (SC) CIT vs. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel Ltd. PROPOSITION IV: THAT IT IS NECESSARY FOR COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX TO POINT OUT THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AS TO HOW THE ORDER OF AO IS PREJUDICIA…

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 290/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…(Del) CIT vs. DLF Power Ltd v) 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. vi) 323 ITR 632 (Bom) CIT vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. vii) 294 ITR 121 (Chennai) CIT vs. Mepco Industries Ltd. viii) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) CIT vs. Munjal Castings ix) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CIT x) 325 ITR 343 (P&H) CIT vs. Tek Chand Saini xi) 333 ITR 547 (Del) CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. xii) 263 ITR 255 (SC) CIT vs. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel Ltd. PROPOSITION IV: THAT IT IS NECESSARY FOR COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX TO POINT OUT THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AS TO HOW THE ORDER OF AO IS PREJUDICIA…

DHUNI CHAND HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 289/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…(Del) CIT vs. DLF Power Ltd v) 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. vi) 323 ITR 632 (Bom) CIT vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. vii) 294 ITR 121 (Chennai) CIT vs. Mepco Industries Ltd. viii) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) CIT vs. Munjal Castings ix) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CIT x) 325 ITR 343 (P&H) CIT vs. Tek Chand Saini xi) 333 ITR 547 (Del) CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. xii) 263 ITR 255 (SC) CIT vs. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel Ltd. PROPOSITION IV: THAT IT IS NECESSARY FOR COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX TO POINT OUT THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AS TO HOW THE ORDER OF AO IS PREJUDICIA…

SH. KASHMIR SINGH SANDHA,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 288/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…(Del) CIT vs. DLF Power Ltd v) 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. vi) 323 ITR 632 (Bom) CIT vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. vii) 294 ITR 121 (Chennai) CIT vs. Mepco Industries Ltd. viii) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) CIT vs. Munjal Castings ix) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CIT x) 325 ITR 343 (P&H) CIT vs. Tek Chand Saini xi) 333 ITR 547 (Del) CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. xii) 263 ITR 255 (SC) CIT vs. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel Ltd. PROPOSITION IV: THAT IT IS NECESSARY FOR COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX TO POINT OUT THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AS TO HOW THE ORDER OF AO IS PREJUDICIA…

M/S GANESH DASS HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 287/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…(Del) CIT vs. DLF Power Ltd v) 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. vi) 323 ITR 632 (Bom) CIT vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. vii) 294 ITR 121 (Chennai) CIT vs. Mepco Industries Ltd. viii) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) CIT vs. Munjal Castings ix) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CIT x) 325 ITR 343 (P&H) CIT vs. Tek Chand Saini xi) 333 ITR 547 (Del) CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. xii) 263 ITR 255 (SC) CIT vs. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel Ltd. PROPOSITION IV: THAT IT IS NECESSARY FOR COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX TO POINT OUT THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AS TO HOW THE ORDER OF AO IS PREJUDICIA…

SH. ARVAIL SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 286/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…(Del) CIT vs. DLF Power Ltd v) 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. vi) 323 ITR 632 (Bom) CIT vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. vii) 294 ITR 121 (Chennai) CIT vs. Mepco Industries Ltd. viii) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) CIT vs. Munjal Castings ix) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CIT x) 325 ITR 343 (P&H) CIT vs. Tek Chand Saini xi) 333 ITR 547 (Del) CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. xii) 263 ITR 255 (SC) CIT vs. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel Ltd. PROPOSITION IV: THAT IT IS NECESSARY FOR COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX TO POINT OUT THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AS TO HOW THE ORDER OF AO IS PREJUDICIA…

STUDDS ACCESSORIES LIMITED,FARIDABAD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FARIDABAD, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3570/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalkra, Adv &For Respondent: Sh. Avikal Manu, CIT DR
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 80J

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘E’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3570/ DEL/2025 (Assessment Year : 2020-21) Studds Accessories Limited Vs. PCIT Plot No. 918, Sector 68, IMT Faridabad Faridabad 121004 (PAN: AACCS4217Q) ASSESSEE BY : Sh. Vishal Kalkra, Adv & Ms. Reema Grewal, CA & Ms. Snigdha Gautam, Adv REVENUE BY : Sh. Avikal Manu, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 09.12.2025 Date of Order : 12.02.2026 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Pr…

AMBUJA CEMENTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-3, MUMBAI

ITA 3474/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Sourabh Soparkar, AR (virtually appear)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…ed the record. We may first refer to the decisions rendered by Hon'ble High Courts, wherein the law relating to the scope of revision proceedings initiated u/s 263 of the Act have been laid down. We may first refer to the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. V CIT (321 ITR 92)(Bom), wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has rendered its decision taking into account the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co Ltd vs. CIT (2000)(243 ITR 83)(SC). The relevant observations made by Hon'ble Bombay High Court are extracted below:…

RICO AUTO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, LUDHIANA

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 703/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.702/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.703/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S Rico Auto Industries Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 बनाम/ B-26, Focal Point Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar Vs. Ludhiana (Punjab)-141010 Ludhiana (Punjab) - 141001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacr-8724-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) (Virtual) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. In These Twin Appeals, The Assessee Assails Proposed Revision Of The Assessment Order By Revisionary Authority U/S 263 For Assessment Years (Ay) 2020-21 & 2021-22. Facts Are Stated To Be Identical In Both The Years. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2020-21 Wherein The Assessee Challenges Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) (Virtual) – Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

…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. 13. In the case of Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108), Hon’ble Bombay High Court observed that from a reading of sub-section (1) of section…

RICO AUTO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, LUDHIANA

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 702/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.702/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.703/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S Rico Auto Industries Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 बनाम/ B-26, Focal Point Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar Vs. Ludhiana (Punjab)-141010 Ludhiana (Punjab) - 141001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacr-8724-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) (Virtual) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. In These Twin Appeals, The Assessee Assails Proposed Revision Of The Assessment Order By Revisionary Authority U/S 263 For Assessment Years (Ay) 2020-21 & 2021-22. Facts Are Stated To Be Identical In Both The Years. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2020-21 Wherein The Assessee Challenges Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) (Virtual) – Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

…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. 13. In the case of Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108), Hon’ble Bombay High Court observed that from a reading of sub-section (1) of section…

SANJEEV KUMAR RANA,ROPAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 706/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.706/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Sanjeev Kumar Rana Pr. Cit बनाम/ Vs. 93-Kiln Area, Nangal Ropar Sector -17E (Punjab) 140124. Chandigarh "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aespk-7126-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca)(Virtual) –Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit)(Virtual) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assails Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chandigarh-1 (Pr. Cit) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Vide Impugned Order Dated 10-05-2023 Proposing Revision Of An Assessment As Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 12-10-2017. 2. Briefly Stated, The Assessee Was Assessed U/S 143(3) On 12-10-2017 Wherein The Income Of The Assessee Was Determined At Rs.8.79 Lacs After

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA)(Virtual) –Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT)(Virtual) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 68

…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. In the case of Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108), Hon’ble Bombay High Court observed that from a reading of sub-section (1) of section 2…

SHARMANJI YARNS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 706/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar (CA) -Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Tarundeep Kaur(CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…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. 15. In the case of Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108), Hon’ble Bombay High Court observed that from a reading of sub-section (1) of section…

SPRIT INFRAPOWER & MULTIVENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-8, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1589/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, AR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)

…preme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT Vs. Max India Ltd (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). Also, support his drawn from the judgments of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) and CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd (1993)203 ITR 108 (Bom). Accordingly, not being able to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the view taken by the Pr.CIT that the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3), dated 23.12.2016 was erroneous insofar it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, we „set aside‟ his order and restore the order pass…

SHRI GAYATRI CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY NIYAMIT HATTARGI,BELAGAVI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BELAGAVI

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

ITA 163/PAN/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Sept 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.163/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2021-22 ) Shri Gayatri Co-Op Credit Vs. Pr.Cit, Society Niyamit Hattargi, C.R.Building, P B Road, Dadbanhatti, Navanagar, Yamakanmardi, Hubli-580025, Belagavi-591246, Karnataka Karnataka. Pan .No.Abasas5325A (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

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

…nt scheme on the issue – claim of deduction u/sec80P of the Act under chapter VIA in respect of interest income on deposits with the cooperative banks. We rely on the decision of the Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of M/S Grasim Industries Ltd Vs CIT (321 ITR 92) considered the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court on the scope of the revisionary proceedings initiated under sec263 of the Act and the observations are read as under: “Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 empowers the Commissioner to call for and examine the record of any proceedings under the Act and, if he considers that any order p…

LOKOPAYOGI ILAKHE AND KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NOWAKARARA PATTIN SANGH NIYAMIT,BELAGAVI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBLI

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

ITA 120/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji25 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.120/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2020-21 ) Lokopayogi Ilakhe & Vs. Pr.Cit, Karnataka Neerawari C.R.Building, Nawakara Pattinsangn Niymit, Navanagar, 1,Fort, Hubli-580025, Belagavi-590016, Karnataka Karnataka. Pan .No.Aaaal1333J (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

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

…applied the mind and accepted the assessee’s submissions in the complete scrutiny in respect of interest income on deposits with the cooperative banks. We rely on the decision of the Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of M/S Grasim Industries Ltd Vs CIT (321 ITR 92) considered the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court on the scope of the revisionary proceedings initiated under sec263 of the Act and the observations are read as under: “Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 empowers the Commissioner to call for and examine the record of any proceedings under the Act and, if he considers that any order p…

SHRI MALLIKARJUN CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI LIMITED,BENADI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBLI

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

ITA 151/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.151/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2020-21 ) Shri Mallikarjun Credit Vs. Pr.Cit, Soudharda Sahakari Limited, C.R.Building, A/P Benadi, Taluka Chikodi, Navanagar, Belagavi-591215, Hubli-580025, Karnataka. Karnataka Pan .No.Aabas3055M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

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

…applied the mind and accepted the assessee’s submissions in the complete scrutiny in respect of interest income on deposits with the cooperative banks. We rely on the decision of the Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of M/S Grasim Industries Ltd Vs CIT (321 ITR 92) considered the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court on the scope of the revisionary proceedings initiated under sec263 of the Act and the observations are read as under: “Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 empowers the Commissioner to call for and examine the record of any proceedings under the Act and, if he considers that any order p…

THE BELGAUM MANUFACTURERS CO-OP INDUSTRIAL ESTATE LTD,BELAGAVI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBBALI

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

ITA 154/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji20 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.154/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2020-21) The Belgaum Manufactures Vs. Pr.Cit, Co-Op Industrial Estate C.R.Building, Limited, Navanagar, 10 342/690,Udyambag, Hubli-580025, Belgaum-590008, Karnataka. Karnataka Pan .No.Aaaat7254J (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Pramod Y Vaidya.Ar Revenue By Shri.Captain Pradeep Arya.Cit.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 14.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 20.08.2025 Pronouncement Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit) Hubli Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assesse Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Revision Order Passed By The Pr.Cit Set Aside The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Is A Cooperative Society Registered Under Bombay Co-Operative

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

…tiny in respect of interest income on deposits with the cooperative banks. We rely on the decision of the Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of M/S Grasim ITA Nos.154/PAN/2025 The Belgaum Manufacturers Co-op Industrial estate Ltd. Industries Ltd Vs CIT (321 ITR 92) considered the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court on the scope of the revisionary proceedings initiated under sec263 of the Act and the observations are read as under: “Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 empowers the Commissioner to call for and examine the record of any proceedings under the Act and, if he considers that any order p…

THE SANKESHWAR SOUHARD CREDIT SAHAKARI LIMITED,SANKESHWAR vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBLI

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

ITA 118/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji19 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.118/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2020-21 ) The Sankeshwar Souhard Vs. Pr.Cit, Credit Sahakari Ltd, C.R.Building, Cts.No.41443/B/234, Navanagar, Near Hanuman Temple, Hubli-580025, Nidasoshi Road, Karnataka Sankeshwar-591313, Karnataka. Pan .No.Aaaat8125C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

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

…applied the mind and accepted the assessee’s submissions in the complete scrutiny in respect of interest income on deposits with the cooperative banks. We rely on the decision of the Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of M/S Grasim Industries Ltd Vs CIT (321 ITR 92) considered the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court on the scope of the revisionary proceedings initiated under sec263 of the Act and the observations are read as under: “Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 empowers the Commissioner to call for and examine the record of any proceedings under the Act and, if he considers that any order p…

SHRI BASAVESHWAR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUDALAGI vs. THE PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBLI

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

ITA 78/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.78/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2020-21) Shri Basaveshwar Urban Vs. Pr.Cit, Co_Op Credit Society C.R.Building, Mudalagi, Navanagar, Belagavi-591312, Hubli-580025, Karnataka Karnataka. Pan .No.Aaaas6800M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Saidappa Gadadi.Ar Revenue By Shri.Captain Pradeep Arya.Cit.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 11.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 14.08.2025 Pronouncement Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit) Hubli Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assesse Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Revision Order Passed By The Pr.Cit Set Aside The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Is A Cooperative Credit Society & Has Filed The Return Of Income For The A.Y 2020-21 On 04.01.2021 Disclosing A Total Income Of

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…applied the mind and accepted the assessee’s submissions in the complete scrutiny in respect of interest income on deposits with the cooperative banks. We rely on the decision of the Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of M/S Grasim Industries Ltd Vs CIT (321 ITR 92) considered the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court on the scope of the revisionary proceedings initiated under sec263 of the Act and the observations are read as under: “Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 empowers the Commissioner to call for and examine the record of any proceedings under the Act and, if he considers that any order I…

Showing 1–20 of 194 · Page 1 of 10

...
Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CIT (321 ITR 92) — Cited in 194 Judgments | BharatTax