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

43 judgments on BharatTax cite Malabar Industrial Co. v. CIT (198 ITR 611), spanning 2016 to 2024.

Malabar Industrial Co. v. CIT

198 ITR 611High Court1992#2733 most cited

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

An assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer without proper application of mind is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, rendering it subject to revision under Section 263. A failure by the Assessing Officer to make due inquiry where circumstances call for it is a manifestation of such non-application of mind.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Malabar Industrial Co. v. CIT · 198 ITR 611 · Section 263 · Section 263(1) · revision of assessment · erroneous and prejudicial · non-application of mind · lack of enquiry · failure to inquire · Assessing Officer investigator · Kerala High Court

Issues it is cited on

section 263(1)lack of enquiry malabar industrial non-application of mind erroneous and prejudicial section 263 section 26 speaking order section 143 section 142(1)person transfer

Judgments citing Malabar Industrial Co. v. CIT

WINDOW TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL) - 2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1060/KOL/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Sept 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Akkal Dudhewala, A.RFor Respondent: Subhendu Datta, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 32

…vs. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del) iii.Thalibai F. Jain vs. ITO 101 ITR 1, 8 (Kar) 5 Window Technologies Pvt. Ltd. AY: 2019-20 iv.Malabar Industrial Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83, 87-88 (SC) affirming the Hon'ble Kerala High Court’s decision in 198 ITR 611 v.Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 & Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC) vi.CIT vs. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works [1998] 231 ITR 53/96 Taxman 1 6. In the written submissions filed before us, the assessee has submitted as under: The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the o…

M/S.SUDCHEMIE INDIA P. LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 51/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Radhesh Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

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

…23 (SC), cites that where a sum not earned by a person is assessed as income in his hands on his so offering, the order passed by the AO accepting the same would be subject to sec. 263. The decision by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, reported at [1992] 198 ITR 611 (Ker), holding the assessment as without application of mind, was, accordingly, affirmed. In Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del), again with reference to judicial precedents, it stands explained that the order of the AO becomes erroneous on a failure to make enquiry where the circumstances call for it. This is not because the…

DEEPAK SWITCH GEARS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 809/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.809/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deepak Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd….…......................…...……………....Appellant 48/6, Suman Villa, 2Nd Floor, 155, Jessore Road, Kolkata-700055. [Pan: Aabcd1131H] Vs. Pcit, Asansol….....….........................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 08, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 07, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 30.12.2022 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Pr. Cit In Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act & Thereby Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame The Assessment Afresh. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Appeal Is Time-Barred By 158 Days. A Separate Application Of Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Wherein, It Has Been Pleaded That After Receipt Of The Impugned Order Of The Pr. Cit, The Assessee, Through Its Director, Shri Deep Kishan Saraf, Immediately Approached One Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal, Chartered

Section 253Section 263Section 5

…erroneous on the ground that the Assessing Officer should have made further enquiries. 5.2 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT reported in (2000) 243 ITR 83, 87-88(SC) affirming the Hon'ble Kerela High Court decision (198 ITR 611) has held that the phrase "Prejudicial to the Interests of the Revenue" is of wide import and is not confined to only loss of taxes. If the A.O. has accepted the claim of the assessee without any enquires then such assessment order passed by the A/O. was held to be erroneous. 5.3 In this regard it is mentioned that mere non enquiry would also ren…

PALLATHUKADAVIL IBRAHIMKUTTY ABDUL KABEER,ERNAKULAM vs. THE PCIT KOCHI-1, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed on the above terms, and his SA dismissed

ITA 428/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Judicialmember & Sa No. 78/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Pallathukadavil Ibrahimkutty Principal Cit – 1 Abdul Kabeer C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road 71, Pallathukadavil Vs. Kochi 682018 Kanjoor P.O., Ernakulam 682575 [Pan: Aaopi0584P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Padmanathan K.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 54B

…323 (SC), held that where a sum not earned by a person is assessed as income in his hands on his so offering, the order passed by the AO accepting the same would be subject to sec. 263. The decision by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, reported at [1992] 198 ITR 611 (Ker), holding the assessment as without application of mind, was, accordingly, affirmed.Absence or lack of enquiry is an attribute, a manifestation, of this non-application, so that an order imbued therewith would be liable to revision. This represents trite law, since co-opted on the Statute itself vide Explanation 2(a) to s. 263(1). In Gee Vee…

JAMESON ABRAHAM,KOLLAM vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 979/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasjameson Abraham Principal Commissioner Emmanuel Cashes Industries Of Income Tax Chepara P.O., Kottarakara Vs. Thiruvananthuparam Kollam 691520 [Pan: Afopa7312Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…. The same, it is to be noted, is an attribute or reflection of non-application of mind, which is among the four infirmities held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC), upholding the decision reported at [1992] 198 ITR 611 (Ker); the other three being: wrong assumption of facts; incorrect application of law; and without following the principles of natural justice, that would render an order as erroneous. Case law in the matter is legion, representing settled law, followed by the Hon'ble Courts across Jameson Abraham v. Pr. CIT the country, including the Hon'ble jur…

STERLING FARM RESEARCH AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. THE PCIT, KOCHI-1, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 661/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Feb 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dassterling Farm Research & Services Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 Pvt. Ltd. Kochi 29/2469 C2, Sterling House Vs. Pettah, Poonithura S.O. Ernakulam 682038 [Pan:Aadcs3199J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raja Kannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50Section 50B

…323 (SC), held that where a sum not earned by a person is assessed as income in his hands on his so offering, the order passed by the AO accepting the same would be subject to sec. 263. The decision by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, reported at [1992] 198 ITR 611 (Ker), holding the assessment as without application of mind, was, accordingly, affirmed. In Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del), again with reference to judicial precedents, it stands explained that the order of the AO becomes erroneous on a failure to make enquiry where the circumstances call for it. This is not because the…

KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 628/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Daskerala State Financial Dy. Cit, Circle - 1(1) & Tps Enterprises Ltd. Thrissur Bhadratha, Museum Road Vs. Chembukkavu - 680020 Thrissur [Pan:Aabct3817A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Harikrishnanunny, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

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

…[1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC), held that where a sum not earned by a person is assessed as income in his hands on his so offering, the order passed by the AO accepting the same would be subject to sec. 263. The decision by the Hon’ble High Court, reported at [1992] 198 ITR 611 (Ker), holding the assessment as without application of mind, was, accordingly, affirmed. In Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del), again with reference to judicial precedents, it stands 2 Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. v. DCIT, Circle - 1(1) & TPS explained that the order of the AO becomes erroneous on a failure to…

ORTEM SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 500/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2018-19 Ortem Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. Pcit - 2, Kolkata P-141, Kalindi Housing Estate, Vs. Kalindi Vatika, 4D, Block-B, Lake Town, Kolkata-700089. Pan: Aabco 2390 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri S. Datta, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit, Kolkata-2 Dated 21.03.2023 Framed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Of The Ld. Pcit Is Contrary To Law & The Facts Of The Appellant Case. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Pcit Erred In Holding That Order Passed U/S 143(3) Dated 08-02- 2021 Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Revenue. 3. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Pcit Erred In Disallowing Employee Contribution Of Rs. 1,53,300/- & Employer Contribution Of Rs. 1,44,998/- Made Towards Provident Fund (Pf) & Employee State Insurance Corporation (Esic). 4. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Pcit Erred In Not Considering The Fact That Both Employee & Employer Contribution Aggregating Rs. 2,98,298/- Was Made Before The Due Date Of Filing Income Tax Return.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)Section 43B

…of the revenue must be held to be erroneous though the converse may not always be true. 10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in (2000) ITR 83, 87-88 (SC) affirming the Hon'ble Kerala High Court decision (198 ITR 611) has held that the phrase "Prejudicial to the interests of Revenue" is of wide import and is not confined to only loss of taxes. If the A.O. has accepted the claim of the assessee without any enquiries then such assessment order passed by the A.O. was held to be erroneous. 11. In this regard, it is mentioned that mere non enquiry would also rend…

V GUARD INDUSTRIES LIMITED,VENNALA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 63/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Mar 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainv-Guard Industries Ltd. Principal Cit-1, 42/962, Vennala High School C R Building, I S Press Road, Vs. Road, Vennala, Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682028 [Pan: Aaacv5492Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Anil D. Nair, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Prashant V.K., Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.03.2023 O R D E R Per: Bench This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Challenging The Revision Of It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 28/12/2018 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Kochi (‘Pr. Cit’ For Short) Vide Order U/S. 263 Dated 22/03/2021. 2. The Appeal, Filed On 08/03/2022, Though Delayed By 256 Days, Was Admitted In View Of The Blanket Condonation By The Apex Court In Suo Motu Wp(C) No.3/2020, Dated 10/01/2022, Excluding The Period From 15/3/2020 To 28/02/2022 In Reckoning The Delay In Computing Limitation Under Law & The Hearing Accordingly Proceeded With. The Assessee Is A Company Manufacturing Electrical Cables, Pumps, Solar Water Heaters, Etc. & Trading In Electrical & Electronic Goods. Revision Of It’S Impugned Assessment Is On Several Issues On Which The Revisionary Authority Found An Absence Or Lack Of Enquiry By The Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prashant V.K., CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…323 (SC), held that where a sum not earned by a person is assessed as income in his hands on his so offering, the order passed by the AO accepting the same would be subject to sec. 263. The decision by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, reported at [1992] 198 ITR 611 (Ker), holding the assessment as without application of mind, was, accordingly, affirmed. In Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del), again with reference to judicial precedents, it stands explained that the order of the AO becomes erroneous on a failure to make enquiry where the circumstances call for it. This is not because the…