Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT

268 ITR 128High Court2004#1747 most cited

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.

65

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT · Section 263 · revisionary power · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · inadequate enquiry · non-application of mind · two views possible · permissible course · Commissioner's different opinion · scope of Section 263 · 268 ITR 128 · 8 ITR (Trib) 403

Also reported as

8 ITR (Trib) 403

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 11(1)(d)Section 147Section 250

Issues it is cited on

inadequate enquirymalabar industriallack of enquiryrevision under section 263section 263(1)revision u/s 263erroneous and prejudicialnon-application of mindsection 56(2)(vii)kelvinatorsection 263section 26

Judgments citing Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Hisar vs. CIT, Hisar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1462/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. Najmi, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(2)Section 80

…d prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. The two conditions must be cumulatively satisfied. Reference, in this regard, may be made to the following decisions: • Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC)- Pg. 58- 62 CLC CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)] Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT: 263 ITR 437 (P&H) • CIT v. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR 1(SC) • Vimgi Investment (P) Limited 290 ITR 505 (Del) • CIT vs. Gabriel India Limited: 203 ITR 108 (Bom)- • In the light of the aforesaid settled legal position, re- assessment order, is neither erroneous n…

Satish Kumar Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-10, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 260/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263

…r (1966) 220 ITR 456 (Delhi) Duggal and Co. (1966) 220 ITR 167 (MP) Mahavar Traders (1995) 213 ITR 843 (Raj) Emery Stone Mfg. Co. (1992) 198 ITR 611 (Ker) Malabar Industrial Co. - Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 243 ITR 83 -CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)] - CIT v Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR I (SC) - CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan: 384 ITR 200 (SC) -. CIT v. Hindustan Lever Ltd 343 ITR 161(Bom.) - CIT v . Vikas Polymers: 341 ITR 537 (Del.) - CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.: 332 ITR 167 (Del) -CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd: 323 ITR 206 (Born.) - Vimgi Inves…

Ravish Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 47/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…nother (1966) 220 ITR 456 (Delhi) Duggal and Co. (1966) 220 ITR 167 (MP) Mahavar Traders (1995) 213 ITR 843 (Raj) Emery Stone Mfg. Co. (1992) 198 ITR 611 (Ker) Malabar Industrial Co. - Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 243 ITR 83 -CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)] - CIT v Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR I (SC) - CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan: 384 ITR 200 (SC) -. CIT v. Hindustan Lever Ltd 343 ITR 161(Bom.) - CIT v . Vikas Polymers: 341 ITR 537 (Del.) - CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.: 332 ITR 167 (Del) -CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd: 323 ITR 206 (Born.) - Vimgi Inves…

Rachit Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 46/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…nother (1966) 220 ITR 456 (Delhi) Duggal and Co. (1966) 220 ITR 167 (MP) Mahavar Traders (1995) 213 ITR 843 (Raj) Emery Stone Mfg. Co. (1992) 198 ITR 611 (Ker) Malabar Industrial Co. - Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 243 ITR 83 -CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)] - CIT v Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR I (SC) - CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan: 384 ITR 200 (SC) -. CIT v. Hindustan Lever Ltd 343 ITR 161(Bom.) - CIT v . Vikas Polymers: 341 ITR 537 (Del.) - CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.: 332 ITR 167 (Del) -CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd: 323 ITR 206 (Born.) - Vimgi Inves…

Jaikishan Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 45/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…nother (1966) 220 ITR 456 (Delhi) Duggal and Co. (1966) 220 ITR 167 (MP) Mahavar Traders (1995) 213 ITR 843 (Raj) Emery Stone Mfg. Co. (1992) 198 ITR 611 (Ker) Malabar Industrial Co. - Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 243 ITR 83 -CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)] - CIT v Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR I (SC) - CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan: 384 ITR 200 (SC) -. CIT v. Hindustan Lever Ltd 343 ITR 161(Bom.) - CIT v . Vikas Polymers: 341 ITR 537 (Del.) - CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.: 332 ITR 167 (Del) -CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd: 323 ITR 206 (Born.) - Vimgi Inves…

Reeta Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 44/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…nother (1966) 220 ITR 456 (Delhi) Duggal and Co. (1966) 220 ITR 167 (MP) Mahavar Traders (1995) 213 ITR 843 (Raj) Emery Stone Mfg. Co. (1992) 198 ITR 611 (Ker) Malabar Industrial Co. - Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 243 ITR 83 -CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)] - CIT v Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR I (SC) - CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan: 384 ITR 200 (SC) -. CIT v. Hindustan Lever Ltd 343 ITR 161(Bom.) - CIT v . Vikas Polymers: 341 ITR 537 (Del.) - CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.: 332 ITR 167 (Del) -CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd: 323 ITR 206 (Born.) - Vimgi Inves…

Gopichand Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 43/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…nother (1966) 220 ITR 456 (Delhi) Duggal and Co. (1966) 220 ITR 167 (MP) Mahavar Traders (1995) 213 ITR 843 (Raj) Emery Stone Mfg. Co. (1992) 198 ITR 611 (Ker) Malabar Industrial Co. - Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 243 ITR 83 -CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)] - CIT v Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR I (SC) - CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan: 384 ITR 200 (SC) -. CIT v. Hindustan Lever Ltd 343 ITR 161(Bom.) - CIT v . Vikas Polymers: 341 ITR 537 (Del.) - CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.: 332 ITR 167 (Del) -CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd: 323 ITR 206 (Born.) - Vimgi Inves…

Pravesh Kumar Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 42/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…nother (1966) 220 ITR 456 (Delhi) Duggal and Co. (1966) 220 ITR 167 (MP) Mahavar Traders (1995) 213 ITR 843 (Raj) Emery Stone Mfg. Co. (1992) 198 ITR 611 (Ker) Malabar Industrial Co. - Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 243 ITR 83 -CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)] - CIT v Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR I (SC) - CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan: 384 ITR 200 (SC) -. CIT v. Hindustan Lever Ltd 343 ITR 161(Bom.) - CIT v . Vikas Polymers: 341 ITR 537 (Del.) - CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.: 332 ITR 167 (Del) -CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd: 323 ITR 206 (Born.) - Vimgi Inves…

Ritin Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 41/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…nother (1966) 220 ITR 456 (Delhi) Duggal and Co. (1966) 220 ITR 167 (MP) Mahavar Traders (1995) 213 ITR 843 (Raj) Emery Stone Mfg. Co. (1992) 198 ITR 611 (Ker) Malabar Industrial Co. - Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 243 ITR 83 -CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)] - CIT v Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR I (SC) - CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan: 384 ITR 200 (SC) -. CIT v. Hindustan Lever Ltd 343 ITR 161(Bom.) - CIT v . Vikas Polymers: 341 ITR 537 (Del.) - CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.: 332 ITR 167 (Del) -CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd: 323 ITR 206 (Born.) - Vimgi Inves…

Krishi Rasayan Export Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, 4, Kolkata

Appeals are allowed

ITA 743/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.742&743/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Krishi Rasayan Exports(P) Ltd. Vs. Pcit-4, Kolkata 29, Lala Lajpath Rai Sarani (Elgin Road), Kolkata – 700020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacck4124G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S.D. Verma, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2020

For Appellant: Shri S.D. Verma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 115JSection 263

…can hardly be any dispute about the settled legal proposition in view of hon’ble apex I.T.A Nos.742&743/Kol/2019 Krishi Rasayan Exports(P) Ltd. court’s landmark decisions in M/s Malabar Industries Co. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC), CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) & CIT v Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR I (SC) that for the CIT or the PCIT; the case may be, can assumed his revision jurisdiction in case the assessment in question both erroneous as well as causing prejudice to interest of the Revenue; simultaneously. And also that each and every loss of revenue does not attract the revision pro…

Krishi Rasayan Export Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, 4, Kolkata

Appeals are allowed

ITA 742/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.742&743/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Krishi Rasayan Exports(P) Ltd. Vs. Pcit-4, Kolkata 29, Lala Lajpath Rai Sarani (Elgin Road), Kolkata – 700020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacck4124G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S.D. Verma, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2020

For Appellant: Shri S.D. Verma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 115JSection 263

…can hardly be any dispute about the settled legal proposition in view of hon’ble apex I.T.A Nos.742&743/Kol/2019 Krishi Rasayan Exports(P) Ltd. court’s landmark decisions in M/s Malabar Industries Co. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC), CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) & CIT v Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR I (SC) that for the CIT or the PCIT; the case may be, can assumed his revision jurisdiction in case the assessment in question both erroneous as well as causing prejudice to interest of the Revenue; simultaneously. And also that each and every loss of revenue does not attract the revision pro…

Kritika Wires Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.C.I.T.-2, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 709/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 263

…Another (1966) 220 ITR 456 (Del) Duggal and Co. (1966) 220 ITR 167 (MP) Mahavar Traders (1995) 213 ITR 843 (Raj) Emery Stone Mfg. Co. (1992) 198 ITR 611 (Ker) Malabar Industrial Co. - Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) - CIT vs.Max India Ltd. 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)] - CIT vs. Kwalaity Steel Suppliers Complex 395 ITR - CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan 384 ITR 200 (SC) - CIT vs. Hindustan Lever Ltd. 343 ITR 161 (Bom) - CIT vs. Vikas Plymers 341 ITR 537 (Del) - CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd 332 ITR 167 (Del) - CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd 323 ITR 206 (Bom) - Vimgi Investment (P) t…

M/S Chengmari Tea Co. Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-4(1), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 812/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Years: 2014-15

Section 115JSection 263Section 33A

…Traders (1995) 213 ITR 843 (Raj) Emery Stone Mfg. Co. (1992) 198 ITR 611 (Ker) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 243 ITR 83 ITA No.812/Kol/2019 Assessment Year 2014-15 M/s Chengmari Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT,Cir-4(1), Kol. Page 4 CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (Sell CIT v Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR 1 (SC) CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan: 384 ITR 200 (SC) CIT v. Hindustan Lever Ltd: 343 ITR 161 (Born.) CIT v. Vikas Polymers: 341 ITR 537 (Del.) CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.: 332 ITR 167 (Del) CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd: 323 ITR 206 (Born.) Vimgi Investment (P…

Sri.Abdul Kareem, Ernakulam vs. The ITO, Aluva

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

ITA 123/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.T.John GeorgeFor Respondent: Sri.Shantom Bose
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 153Section 263Section 28Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…action u/s 263 of the I.T.Act as there was no proper application of mind by the Assessing Officer about the nature of interest received. The second judgment relied on by the Pr.CIT is that of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Raja & Company v. CIT [335 ITR 381 (Ker.)]. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court upheld the order u/s 263 of the I.T.Act since the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind about the applicability of section 40A(3) and 40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act. In both the judgments relied on by the Commissioner of Income-tax, the revision u/s 263 of the I.T.Act was upheld as there was non- application…

Amazia Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2499/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta with Anuj Kushandwala –CA’s (AR)For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena CIT-DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 22Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263

…as taken a possible view. In support of his submission the learned AR of the assessee relied upon the following decision (i) Malabar Industrial Company Ltd Versus CIT ( 243 ITR 82 SC) (ii) CIT Versus Max India ( 295ITR 282 SC) (iii) CIT Vs Arvind Jewellers (290 ITR 689 Guj) (iv) CIT Vs Gabrial India Ltd (203 ITR108 (Bom), (v) CIT Vs Development Credit Bank (323 ITR 206 Bom), (vi) CIT Vs Vikas Polymers (194 TAXMAN 57 Delhi), (vii) CIT Vs Anil Kumar Sharma (194 TAXMAN 504 Delhi) 6. The ld. AR for the assessee further submits that CBDT has issued a Circular No. 16/2017, dated 25.04.2017, wherein it is expressly s…

DCIT, Shimla vs. M/S Hotel Landmark, Shimla

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

ITA 417/CHANDI/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Hotel Landmark, Vs. The Cit, The Mall, Shimla Shimla Pan No. Aaefh9693B

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gulshan Raj, CIT DR
Section 263Section 80Section 80I

…the Tribunal in the case of Asia Health Resorts dated 23.3.2017 passed in ITA Nos. 1297/Chd/2016 and 1221/Chd/2016. The Ld. counsel has further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of ‘CIT Vs. Max India Ltd’ [2004] 268 ITR 128 (P&H) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that if the view taken by the Assessing officer was a possible view, Commissioner had no jurisdiction to exercise powers u/s 263 and to treat the order as erroneous in any manner. The Ld. counsel has further submitted that the Revenue has challenged the aforesaid decision before the Hon'ble Supreme…

M/S Hotel Landmark, Shimla vs. CIT, Shimla

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

ITA 481/CHANDI/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Hotel Landmark, Vs. The Cit, The Mall, Shimla Shimla Pan No. Aaefh9693B

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gulshan Raj, CIT DR
Section 263Section 80Section 80I

…the Tribunal in the case of Asia Health Resorts dated 23.3.2017 passed in ITA Nos. 1297/Chd/2016 and 1221/Chd/2016. The Ld. counsel has further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of ‘CIT Vs. Max India Ltd’ [2004] 268 ITR 128 (P&H) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that if the view taken by the Assessing officer was a possible view, Commissioner had no jurisdiction to exercise powers u/s 263 and to treat the order as erroneous in any manner. The Ld. counsel has further submitted that the Revenue has challenged the aforesaid decision before the Hon'ble Supreme…

Powerica Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT(Ltu), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3747/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Powerica Limited Cit (Ltu), 9Th Floor, Bakhtawar, 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre I, Nariman Point, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400005. Pan: Aaacp3812E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri H.N. Singh (CIT-DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263Section 43A

…7) (4) Bharat Serums & Vaccines Ltd Vs ACIT ( ITA 3091/M/2012) 4 Powerica Ltd (5) Malabar Industrial Co Ltd versus CIT (243 ITR 83 SC) (6) CIT versus Max India (203 ITR 108 Bom) (7) CIT versus Gabriel India (203 ITR 108 Bom) (8) CIT versus Arvind Jewellers (290 ITR 689 Gujarat) (9) CIT versus Development Credit Bank Ltd(323 ITR 206 Bombay) (10) CIT versus Vikas Polymers (194 TAXMAN 57 Delhi) and (11) CIT versus Anil Kumar Sharma(194 TAXMAN 504 Delhi) 4. On the other hand the learned AR for the revenue supported the order of branded Commissioner. It was argued that the assessing officer has not examined the fore…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S International Tractors Ltd

ITA/1082/2005HC Delhi20 Jul 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 147Section 260ASection 80

…e issue of exercise of jurisdictional powers under Section 263 of the Act, reliance was placed on the decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Max India Limited (2004) 268 ITR 128 (P&H) which was upheld by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India Limited (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). Interpretation of Section 80 IA 33.The Court first takes up for consideration the question of interpretation of Section 80-IA of the Act. The said section, provided for "Deductions in respect of profits and gains from industrial undertaking…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi IV vs. International Tractors Ltd

ITA/690/2008HC Delhi20 Jul 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 147Section 260ASection 80

…e issue of exercise of jurisdictional powers under Section 263 of the Act, reliance was placed on the decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Max India Limited (2004) 268 ITR 128 (P&H) which was upheld by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India Limited (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). Interpretation of Section 80 IA 33.The Court first takes up for consideration the question of interpretation of Section 80-IA of the Act. The said section, provided for "Deductions in respect of profits and gains from industrial undertaking…

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (268 ITR 128) — Cited in 65 Judgments | BharatTax