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

Revision under Section 263 requires an assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. It is not permissible if the Assessing Officer adopted a legally permissible view, one of two possible views, or applied mind to the issues, despite the Commissioner's differing opinion or perceived inadequate enquiry.

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

65 judgments on BharatTax cite Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (268 ITR 128), spanning 2010 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 143(2), Section 271(1)(c), Section 11(1)(d).

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (268 ITR 128)

Shree Sant Bhojaji Maharaj Deosthan Ajansara, Wardha vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption) - 4, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 212/NAG/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Apr 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 211/NAG/2025(AY 2015-16) Shree Sant Bhojaji Maharaj CIT(E), Pune at Nagpur Deosthan Ajansara Vs Saraf Chambers, Sadar, Ajansara, Wardha – 442001. Nagpur – 440001. [PAN: AAPTS4528N] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by ShriManoj G Moryani, Adv & Shri Bhavesh M Moryani, Adv Revenue by Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR Date of hearing 23.02.2026 Date of pronouncement 01.04.2026 PER KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, AM: 1. These three appeals are filed by assessee against the…

Shree Sant Bhojaji Maharaj Deosthan Ajansara, Wardha vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption) -4, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 211/NAG/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Apr 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 211/NAG/2025(AY 2015-16) Shree Sant Bhojaji Maharaj CIT(E), Pune at Nagpur Deosthan Ajansara Vs Saraf Chambers, Sadar, Ajansara, Wardha – 442001. Nagpur – 440001. [PAN: AAPTS4528N] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by ShriManoj G Moryani, Adv & Shri Bhavesh M Moryani, Adv Revenue by Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR Date of hearing 23.02.2026 Date of pronouncement 01.04.2026 PER KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, AM: 1. These three appeals are filed by assessee against the…

Shree Sant Bhojaji Maharaj Deosthan Ajansara, Wardha vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune at Ngp, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 186/NAG/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Apr 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 211/NAG/2025(AY 2015-16) Shree Sant Bhojaji Maharaj CIT(E), Pune at Nagpur Deosthan Ajansara Vs Saraf Chambers, Sadar, Ajansara, Wardha – 442001. Nagpur – 440001. [PAN: AAPTS4528N] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by ShriManoj G Moryani, Adv & Shri Bhavesh M Moryani, Adv Revenue by Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR Date of hearing 23.02.2026 Date of pronouncement 01.04.2026 PER KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, AM: 1. These three appeals are filed by assessee against the…

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)

…ons 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 taken one view with which the Commissioner d…

Gajanand Financial Consultancy Private Limited, Nagpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Nagpur, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 126/NAG/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…5IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.126/Nag./2025 (Assessment Year : 2013–14) Gajanand Financial Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. N–86, MIDC, Hingna Road ……………. Appellant Nagpur 440 016 PAN – AADCG2049R v/s Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent (Central), Nagpur Assessee by : Shri Manoj G. Moryani Revenue by : Shri Pankaj Kumar Date of Hearing – 23/06/2025 Date of Order – 22/09/2025 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. By this appeal, the assessee has challenged the impugned order dated 05/0…

Pratap Singh Rathi, Ghaziabad vs. Pr. CIT (Central), Kanpur

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 502/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Sh. Pratap Singh Rathi, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of C-143, Surya Nagar, Income Tax , Ghaziabad Knp At Meerut Pin 201 001 Pan No. Ahkpr0582M (Appellant)M (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Shrey Jain &For Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…he Ld. AO was a plausible view which was also taken by various judicial bodies and therefore, the order of Ld. AO cannot be held as erroneous and thus, jurisdiction u/s 263 cannot be assumed in view of the following judicial decision: CIT vs. Max India Ltd., 268 ITR 128, High Court of Punjab & Haryana. 8 5.7 Further, reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of Sh. Trivikram Singh Toor vs. PCIT in ITA No. 110/Chd/2021 dated 21.09.2022 wherein the facts were identical with the the p facts of the case of assessee and it was held by the Hon'ble Bench that jurisdiction u/…

Alliance Nirmaan Limited, Bareilly vs. PCIT, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 119/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(3)Section 263

…he Commissioner, the order should be written more elaborately. All these principles are highlighted in the judgments noted hereinafter." Powers u/s 263 cannot be invoked merely because the CIT had a different opinion on the matter Ramakant Singh Vs CIT [2011] 8 ITR (Trib) 403 (Pat) It was held, that the questionnaire issued by the Assessing Officer covered all the points raised by the Commissioner in his show- cause notice and in the order passed under section 263 and on all these points, reply along with necessary details and evidence was furnished by the assessee before the Assessing Officer in the course of as…

Venetian Ldf Projects LLP, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), Gurgaon

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3533/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

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

…ons 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 taken one view with which the Commissioner d…

Horizon Dwellings Private Limited, Bareilly vs. PCIT, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 77/LKW/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriahorizon Dwellings Pvt Ltd V. Pcit, Bareilly, Navjeevan Appartments, Income Tax Department, Opposite Parag Factory, Bareilly (Up)-243001. Badaun Road, Kargaina, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aacch6839F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl

Section 143(3)Section 263

…the order should be written more elaborately. All these principles are highlighted in the judgments noted hereinafter." Page 23 of 33 Powers u/s 263 cannot be invoked merely because the CIT had a different opinion on the matter Ramakant Singh Vs CIT [2011] 8 ITR (Trib) 403 (Pat) It was held, that the questionnaire issued by the Assessing Officer covered all the points raised by the Commissioner in his show cause notice and in the order passed under section 263 and on all these points, reply along with necessary details and evidence was furnished by the assessee before the Assessing Officer in the course of ass…