How many judgments cite Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT?

2,803 judgments on BharatTax cite Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (243 ITR 83), spanning 2009 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 144B, Section 143(2), Section 147.

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT

243 ITR 83Supreme Court of India2000#4 most cited

What is Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

For revision under Section 263, the Assessing Officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue; if either condition is not met, the revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked. An order is not erroneous merely because the Assessing Officer did not record the details of enquiries conducted, provided due enquiries were made.

2,803

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT · Section 263 · revision under Section 263 · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · twin conditions for Section 263 · inadequate enquiry · lack of enquiry recorded · Assessing Officer's possible view · revisionary jurisdiction PCIT · assessment order erroneous

Also reported as

109 Taxmann 66159 CTR 1

Sections most often in play

Section 263 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 144B Section 143(2)Section 147 Section 1961 Section 148

Issues it is cited on

malabar industrial inadequate enquiry section 263(1)lack of enquiry assessment order erroneous revision u/s 263 erroneous and prejudicial revision under section 263 section 263 section 26 complete scrutiny section 119

Judgments citing Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT

DAYA RAM SUKHALA (HUF),ROHTAK vs. ITO WARD-3, ROHTAK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1255/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2020-21 Vs. Income Tax Officer Shri Daya Ram Shukla (Huf) Ward-3 83A/22, Kishan Pura, Zila Parishad Building Rohtak- 124001 Rohtak Haryana Haryana Pan: Aaihd7643E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Ca Department By Sh. Ravi Kant Chaudhary, Sr. Dr

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2020-21 Vs. Income Tax Officer Shri Daya Ram Shukla (HUF) Ward-3 83A/22, Kishan Pura, Zila Parishad Building Rohtak- 124001 Rohtak Haryana Haryana PAN: AAIHD7643E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Manoj Kumar, CA Department by Sh. Ravi Kant Chaudhary, Sr. DR Date of hearing 06.04.2026 Date of pronouncement 06.04.2026 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, th…

BADAM SINGH SUKHALA (HUF),ROHTAK vs. I T O WARD -3 , ROHTAK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1250/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2020-21 Vs. Income Tax Officer Badam Singh Shukla (Huf) 83 C 22, Ran Singh Lane, Ward-3 Kishan Pura Zila Parishad Building Rohtak-124001 Rohtak Haryana Haryana Pan: Aajhb4611H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Ca Department By Sh. Ravi Kant Chaudhary, Sr. Dr

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2020-21 Vs. Income Tax Officer Badam Singh Shukla (HUF) 83 C 22, Ran Singh Lane, Ward-3 Kishan Pura Zila Parishad Building Rohtak-124001 Rohtak Haryana Haryana PAN: AAJHB4611H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Manoj Kumar, CA Department by Sh. Ravi Kant Chaudhary, Sr. DR Date of hearing 06.04.2026 Date of pronouncement 06.04.2026 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre…

NITIN MANGLA,DELHI vs. PCIT-15, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2693/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2021-22] Nitin Mangla Vs Pcit-15 D-15, Ground Floor, Delhi Vikaspuri, New Delhi- 110018. Pan-Ajbpm5834C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shantanu Kanungo, Adv. & Ms. Sayantani Kanungo, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2026

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 69C

…disallowance of the same should be made and thus, hold the assessment order as erroneous and pre-judicial to the interest of the Revenue and by placing reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC). It is observed that AO in its order alleged that assessee has not filed the details however, from the perusal of the acknowledgements of e-proceedings filed before us dated 15.12.2022 through which assessee has filed various details to establish the genuineness of the purchases made. 8. The assessee has filed all the details before the lowe…

RANJANBEN AJITENDRA PARIKH,NA vs. ARIVS.OFFICE OF THE PR. CIT, VALSAD

In the result, all three appeals are allowed

ITA 853/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT. D.R

Section 263

…adopts one of them, the same cannot be termed as erroneous merely because the PCIT prefers another view. 13. The learned PCIT, valsad has erred in placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [243 ITR 83 (SC)] without appreciating that the facts and issues involved in the present case, pertaining to a jeweller, are neither identical nor comparable to those in the cited decision, which related to a different industry and a distinct set of facts. 14. In light of various judicial precedents and facts of the case, the revisionary order u/s 263 of the…

RANJITBHAI AMBUBHAI PATEL,BILIMORA vs. OFFICE OF THE PR. CIT, VALSAD

In the result, all three appeals are allowed

ITA 852/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT. D.R

Section 263

M/S DAYARAM BRIJBHUKHANDAS,NA vs. ARIVS.OFFICE OF THE PR. CIT, VALSAD

In the result, all three appeals are allowed

ITA 851/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT. D.R

Section 263

PENNAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is partly allowed/partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 832/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)Section 263

…r Section 263 of the Act could not have assumed jurisdiction to seek substitution of his view as against that of the AO. The Ld. AR to support his contention had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC). 11. Apropos the merits of the case, the Ld. AR submitted that the core issues, based on which the Ld. Pr. CIT had revised the order passed by the AO under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 20.09.2022, had, inter alia, formed the very basis for the selection of its case for complete scrutiny under CASS, viz. (i). debt has been wri…

AMAZON SMART COMMERCE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1, DELHI

ITA 3533/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)

…of the Act, the pre-requisite twin conditions are that the assessment order should be: (a) erroneous; and (b) prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 15. Reliance, in this regard, is placed on the following decisions: Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 243 ITR 83 (SC) CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)] CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR 1 (SC) 16. It is further settled law that if the assessing officer has adopted one of the courses permissible in law which has resulted in loss of revenue, or where two views are possible and the assessing officer has t…

DAVINDER KUMAR MAGO,PUNJABI BAGH vs. DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DDN, DEHRADUN

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 17/DDN/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Davinder Kumar Mago Vs Dcit/Acit 12/1, Punjabi Bagh, Central Circle, External Punjabi Bagh, Dehradun New Delhi-110026 Uttarakhand Pan-Ajhpm9802A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. (Vc) Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order By Pr.Cit (Central), Kanpur At Meerut Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1861 (“The Act”) Dated 08.01.2026 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act.

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

…there in the assessment record and the said material was considered by the Assessing Officer and a particular view was taken. This view of ours is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Malabar Industrial Co.Ltd. Vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (Supreme Court).” 10. In the light of the above discussion and overall facts and circumstances of the case, we find that AO has made proper and adequate inquiries and verification in order to examine the genuineness of loan transactions and creditworthiness of the lenders and Ld. PCIT has failed to point out any error/omission in the details file…

SRI GURU RAMALINGESHWARA SOUHARDA PATTINA SAHAKARI NIYAMITHA ,MASKI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , HUBLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1174/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, JCIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…r section 263 of the Act cannot be exercised to substitute the view of the ld. PCIT for that of the AO. In holding so, we draw support and guidance from the landmark judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT reported 243 ITR 83 where it was held as under: 9. The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue' has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, for example, when an ITO adopted…

MICROTEK INFRASTRUTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3112/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year:2020-21]

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 68

…urt has held that “If due to an erroneous order of the AO the revenue is losing tax lawfully payable by a person, it would be certainly prejudicial to the interest of revenue”. In the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT [2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC)/[2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC)/[2000] 159 CTR 1 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “where Assessing Officer had accepted entry in statement of account filed by assessee, in absence of any supporting material without making any enquiry, exercise of jurisdiction by Commissioner under section 263 was justified.” The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Shri B…

M/S SOVA,PANAJI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

ITA 24/PAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji10 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2018-19 M/S Sova Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan: Aacfs8862Q . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent

For Appellant: Mr Sukhsagar Syal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253(1)Section 263Section 56

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, GOA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/s Sova Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Panaji, Goa-403001. PAN: AACFS8862Q . . . . . . . Appellant V/s Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee by: Mr Sukhsagar Syal [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’] Date of conclusive Hearing : 05/03/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 10/03/2026 ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI; This appeal is filed u/s 253(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act…

DHARMBATI,FARIDABAD vs. INCOME TAX INSPECTOR FARIDABAD, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5672/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2018-19 Dharmbati, Vs. Income Tax Inspector, H. No. 523, Chandawali, Faridabad Ballabhgarh, Faridabad Pan: Azipb6400G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 05.03.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short, The “Cit(A)/Nfac”], Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1077406804(1), Dated 23.06.2025 Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Case Called Twice. None Appears At The Assessee’S Behest. He Is Accordingly Proceeded Ex-Parte. 2. It Emerges During The Course Of Hearing That The Sole Substantive Issue Between The Parties Is That Of Correctness Of The Learned Lower Authorities’ Action Assessing The Assessee’S Interest Component Of Land Acquisition Compensation U/S 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, While Invoking Section 57(Iv) R.W.S. 56(1)(A) R.W.S. 145A(B) Of The Act. 3. Learned Sr. Dr Representing The Department Vehemently Argued That The Instant Issue Is No More Res Integra In Light Of Mahender Pal Narang Vs. Cbdt (2020) 423 Itr 13 (P&H) As Well As Pcit Vs. Inderjit Singh Sodhi Huf (2024) 161 Taxmann.Com 301 (Del.) Wherein The Department Has Succeeded Before Their Lordships That The Impugned Interest Component Ought To Be Assessed As Income From “Other” Sources Only. 4. We Have Given Our Thoughtful Consideration To The Assessee’S Pleadings & Revenue’S Foregoing Vehement Contention. It Emerges That This Tribunal’S Recent Decision In Pawan Kumar Vs. Pcit (2024) 159 Taxmann.Com 61 (Del.-Trib.) Has Distinguished The Said Case Law As Under:

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…Rajasthan High Court in Ganpat Ram Bisnoi's case (supra). An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC). None of these elements exist in the case at hand. 10. Perusal of the order of the Ld. PCIT shows that he assumed the revisionary power under section 263 of the Act mainly on the ground that the Ld. AO passed the order not in accordance with the binding decision of Hon'ble P & H High Court in Mahender Pal Narang's case (supra) against which S…

GOPAL REDDY GATTU,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1) , HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1011/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Section 143(3)Section 263

…but also prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Thus, taking into account relevant facts and also by following certain judicial precedents, including the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, reported in (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), set aside the assessment order passed by the A.O. under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 26.12.2022 and directed the A.O. to verify the issues with regard to direct income and indirect income credited into the profit and loss account and to pass a fresh assessment after affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 10. Aggr…

MADAN MOHAN RAO PUVVADA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1152/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1152/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Madan Mohan Rao The Income Tax Puvvada, Hyderabad. Officer, Ward-5(1), Vs. Pin – 500 063. Hyderabad. Pan Agjpp4754H Telangana. Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04.03.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263

…nt order was passed by the Assessing Officer is sustainable in law. Therefore, the revision order passed u/sec.263 deserves to be quashed. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following decisions: 1. Malabar Industries co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (S.C) 2. CIT vs Max India Ltd [2008] 295 ITR 282 (S.C) 3. PCIT vs. Dhana Reddy & Co [2018] 100 taxmann.com 358 (S.C) 4. CIT vs Srinivasa Hatcheries (P.) Ltd [2015] 60 taxmann.com 207 (AP & Telangana) 5. Spectra Shares & Scrips (P.) Ltd vs. CIT, [2013] 36 taxmann.com 348 (AP) 11 ITA.No.1152/Hyd./2024 6. Satyanarayana Reddy Manne, Hydereabad vs. AC…

MAHAVEER SINGH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 840/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234FSection 263(1)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44A

…and prejudicial on two points, the Commissioner had the power to remand the matter and direct for initiation of penalty proceedings also. He relied upon the following decisions 1. Saraiya Distillery's case (supra) 2. Malabar Industrial Co. Lid. v. CIT (2000).243 ITR 83-(SC). 7. Shri R.R. Kapoor learned counsel for the respondent submitted that omission to initiate penalty proceedings under section 273(1) of the Act by the Income Tax Officer while passing the assessment order did not amount to an order which could be revised by the Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 of the Act. While supporting the deci…

STARSHINE LAND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI-5, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2148/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 148Section 23(5)Section 263

…evenue. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The legal position governing exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 263 is well settled. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (243 ITR 83) has held that the Commissioner can revise an order only when the twin conditions, the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue are satisfied. An order becomes erroneous when it is passed on incorrect assumption of facts or incorrect application of law or without application of mind. 4 Starshine Land Developers Privat…

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

…either of the two conditions does not exist or are found not satisfied, the learned PCIT cannot initiate proceedings to set aside otherwise an unfavourable order, as has been held in following cases: a) 163 ITR 129 (Mad) Venkat Krishna Rice Company v. CIT b) 243 ITR 83 (SC) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (PAGES 265-270 of JPB) c) 350 ITR 555 (Del) CIT vs. DLF Ltd. (pages 271-276 of JPB) "It is not mere prejudice to the Revenue, or a mere erroneous view which can be revised, under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. There should be the added element of "unsustainability" in the order of the Assessing Off…

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

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

Showing 1–20 of 2,803 · Page 1 of 141

...