How many judgments cite (i) Malabar Industrial Limited v. CIT (SC)?

10 judgments on BharatTax cite (i) Malabar Industrial Limited v. CIT (SC) (51 DTR 228), spanning 2022 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does (i) Malabar Industrial Limited v. CIT (SC) come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 10, Section 142(1), Section 143(3), Section 144B, Section 147.

(i) Malabar Industrial Limited v. CIT (SC)

51 DTR 228High Court#10657 most cited

What is (i) Malabar Industrial Limited v. CIT (SC) authority for?

An assessment order is considered erroneous if it is based on an incorrect assumption of facts, an incorrect application of law, a lack of application of mind, or insufficient material. If an order is found to be erroneous, no specific finding is required to show it is prejudicial to the revenue's interest for invoking revisionary powers under section 263.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Malabar Industrial Limited · TTK LIG Ltd. v/s ACIT · 51 DTR 228 · erroneous assessment order · prejudicial to revenue · section 263 · lack of enquiry · incorrect assumption of facts · incorrect application of law

Sections most often in play

Section 263 Section 10 Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144B Section 147 Section 148 Section 36(1)(viia)

Issues it is cited on

prejudicial to interest of revenue revision under section 263 revision u/s 263 malabar industrial lack of enquiry erroneous and prejudicial section 119 complete scrutiny faceless assessment section 263 section 26 section 11

Judgments citing (i) Malabar Industrial Limited v. CIT (SC)

Narendra Kumar Makhija, Kota vs. PCIT, Udaipur

ITA 605/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Learned Cit(A). Said Appeal Is Pending Before Learned Cit(A), As Claimed By The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri B.L. Bhojwani, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 263Section 68

…hile setting aside the assessment order as regards the only issue of cash deposits of Rs. 14,38,81,100/-, and issued directions to the Assessing Officer, as noticed above:-  Malabar Industrial Limited v/s CIT, 243 ITR ( S.C);  TTK LIG Ltd., v/s ACIT, (Mad) 51 DTR 228;  Arvee International v/s Addl. CIT, (ITAT, Mum) 101 ITD 495.  CIT vs Raisons Industries ltd, 288 ITR 322 (SC); and  Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 490 ( Mad. H.C) 12. In para 7.4 of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer dealt with the issue of cash deposit and observed that the assessee had deposited cash to the tune of R…

Shenhzhen Sdg Information Co. Ltd., Delhi vs. Circle Int. Taxation 3(1)(2), Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 746/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shenhzhen Sdg Information Co. Ltd., International Taxation-3, C/O- Tass Advisors Llp, 62, New Delhi Lower Ground Floor, Pocket 2, Jasola, New Delhi Pan: Aavcs7426C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Divyanshu Agrawal, Adv. Sh. Anubhav Rastogi, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B Vasanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05.06.2025 Order

Section 263Section 44B

…nstant case by not resorting to collection of relevant material facts or conducting further inquiry and applying correct legal positions, the Assessment Order passed by the AO had caused prejudice to revenue administration. In another case of TTK LIG VS ACIT, 51 DTR 228(Mad), the Hon'ble High Court had gone one step further to decide that once the order is found to be erroneous, no specific finding is required to show that the same is prejudicial to interest of revenue. 6.7 Accordingly, initiation of proceeding under section 263 of the Act is in accordance with the legal positions. 7. Taxability of consideration…

Alok Vijawat, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Udaipur

ITA 605/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…an Incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous. In the same category fall orders passed without applying the principles of natural justice or without application of mind. (ii) In case of TTK LIG Ltd., v/s. ACIT(Mad) 51 DTR 228 it has been held that Order would be erroneous if it is based on an incorrect assumption of facts or an 7 SHRI ALOK VIJAWAT VS PCIT,UDAIPUR incorrect application of law or non-application of mind or based on no or insufficient materials. (iii) In the case of Arvee international vis. Addl. CIT (ITAT, Mum) 101 ITD 495, it has been held that Unlike…

Baroda Rajasthan Khestriya Gramin Bank, Ajmer vs. PCIT, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 253/JPR/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shailesh Mantri, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…irement of the order being erroneous. In the same category fall orders passed without applying the principles of natural justice or without application of mind". 7 Baroda Rajasthan Kheshtriya Gramin Bank vs. PCIT (ii) In case of TTK LIG Ltd., v/s. ACIT(Mad) 51 DTR 228 it has been held that Order would be erroneous if it is based on an incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law or non- application of mind or based on no or insufficient materials. (iii) In the case of Arvee international vis. Addl. CIT (ITAT, Mum) 101 ITD 495, it has been held that Unlike the Civil Court which is neutral to…

The Lake Palace Hotels & Motelsprivate Limited, Udaipur vs. PCIT, Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 52/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

…an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous. In the same category fall orders passed without applying the principles of natural justice or without application of mind. (ii) In case of TTK LIG Ltd., vis. ACIT(Mad) 51 DTR 228 it has been held that Order would be erroneous if it is based on an incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law or non-application of mind or based on no or insufficient materials. (iii) In the case of Arvee international vis, Addl. CIT (ITAT, Mum) 101 ITD 495, it has been held that Unlike the Civil Court which is neutral to g…

Career Point Limited, Kota, Rajasthan vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur, Rajasthan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 242/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…83 (SC)This case rather support the assessee’s case. Their Lordship held that it has to be remembered that every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of AO cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. b) TTK LIG Ltd Vs ACIT (Mad) 51 DTR 228:- This case is not applicable to the case of assessee in hand. The assessee filed details to support the claim that it has non interest bearing funds in shape of share capital and reserves much more than the investments which might earn the exempt income. Therefore, the order passed by ld FAO us not based on incorrect facts, assumption of wrong fa…

Castamet Works Private Limited, Kharwa vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur

ITA 187/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Prakul Khurana (Adv.) &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(va)

…escribed rules 6. Ld. PCIT Directed Assessing Officer to verify and examine and finalize the assessment in accordance with the prevailing late 7. Judgments relied upon by Ld. PCIT i. Malabar Industrial Limited V/S CIT2431TR ii. TTK LIG Ltd.. v/s. ACIT(Mad) 51 DTR 228 iii. Arvee international v/s. Addl. CIT (ITAT, Mum) 101 ITD 495, iv. CIT v/s. Raisons Industries Ltd., 288 ITR 322 (SC v. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. [2000] 242 ITR 490 (Mad.) 44 Castamet Works Private Limited vs. PCIT SUBMISSION: 77. The submission on this ground is without prejudice to the fact that no basis has been provided in the impug…

Sun Stone Ingineering Induries P.Ltd., Jaipur vs. Pcti-2, Jaipur

The appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 50/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Avdhesh Kumar (CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 263

…y, he has passed the order u/s 263 of the Act based on material available on record ex-parte qua the assessee. The ld. PCIT derived the supports from the following judgments as under:- • Malabar Industrial Limited vs. CIT 243 ITR. • TTK LIG Ltd. vs. ACIT(Mad) 51 DTR 228. • ARvee International vs. Addl. CIT (ITAT, Mum) 101 ITD 495. • CIT vs. Nagesh Knitwears Pvt. Ltd. 345 ITR 135 (Delhi H.C.). • Gee Vee Enterprises v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax (1975) 99 ITR 375. • CIT vs. Raisons Industries Ltd. 288 ITR 322 (SC). • Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 490 (Mad H.C.). 7. The learned counsel for…

M/S Rajendra and Ursula Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

ITA 57/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Mehar (CIT)

Section 263Section 5

…receipt of share capital of 25.5Cr. each from three different entities are not reflected. In reaching the such conclusions, I am aided by the following judicial rulings: (i) Malabar Industrial Limited Vs. CIT (SC) 243 ITR 83 (ii) TTK LIG Ltd. Vs ACIT (Mad) 51 DTR 228 (iii) Arvee International Vs. Addl CIT (ITAT-Mum) 101 ITD 495 (iv) CIT Vs. Nagesh Knitwears P. Ltd. 345 ITR 135 (Del- HC) (v) Gee Vee Enterprise Vs. Additional CIT 99 ITR 375 (vi) CIT Vs. Raisions Industries Ltd. 288 ITR 322 (SC) (vii) Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. 242 ITR 490 (Mad) In view of the above, I hold that the order passed by the AO on…

M/S Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Developement Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur, Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

ITA 56/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Mehar (CIT)

Section 263Section 5