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.

How many judgments cite Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CIT?

194 judgments on BharatTax cite Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CIT (321 ITR 92), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 147, Section 144B, Section 148.

Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CIT (321 ITR 92)

Mr.Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-1(4), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1509/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1508/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1509/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1510/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1511/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1512/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1513/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Mr. Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen Pcit (Central) बनाम/ 42, Maraikayar Street, Ii Floor, Chennai-1. Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Vs. Chennai-600 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aawpi-0038-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Lavanya (Ca) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-08-2024

For Appellant: Ms. Lavanya (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. DR

Section 153CSection 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. 6. Therefore, on the given facts, the allegation of Ld. Pr. CIT that Ld. AO did not make necessary enquiries, could not be accepted. The E…

Mr.Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1508/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1508/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1509/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1510/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1511/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1512/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1513/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Mr. Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen Pcit (Central) बनाम/ 42, Maraikayar Street, Ii Floor, Chennai-1. Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Vs. Chennai-600 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aawpi-0038-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Lavanya (Ca) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-08-2024

For Appellant: Ms. Lavanya (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. DR

Section 153CSection 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. 6. Therefore, on the given facts, the allegation of Ld. Pr. CIT that Ld. AO did not make necessary enquiries, could not be accepted. The E…