← All Phrases

“Malabar Industrial”

Judicial DoctrinesMalabar - 263Malabar - 2631,099 judgments

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

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3533/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)

view with which the Commissioner does not agree, the exercise of revisionary power under section 263 of the Act would be without jurisdiction [refer, Malabar Industrial (supra), Max India (supra), CIT vs Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (supra)].\nAssessment order neither “erroneous” nor “prejudicial to interests of Revenue”\n17. Applying ... view with which the Commissioner does not agree, the exercise of revisionary power under section 263 of the Act would be without jurisdiction [refer, Malabar Industrial (supra), Max India (supra), CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (supra)].\n150 Reliance, in this regard is further placed on the following decisions, wherein

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

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

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)

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

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

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 ... assessment order in which revenue Page 12 of 15 has potentially lost lawful revenue. Hon’ble Supreme Court 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), has held that “where Assessing Officer

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

reversing the Ld. NFeAC’s treatment finds fortified in view of the binding judicial precedence laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Malabar Industrial Co Ltd. Vs CIT’ [2000, 109 Taxman 66 (SC)], wherein vide para 9 of the judgement their hon’ble lordships laid that; ‘There must

PROGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 625/HYD/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.625/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2021-2022 Progressive Constructions The Dcit, Limited, Hyderabad. Circle-5(1) Vs. Pin – 500 001. Telangana. Hyderabad - 500 004. Pan Aabcp2274M Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ca Pawan Kumar Chakrapani िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : & Sri Santi Pavan Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Sri Lv Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: And Sri Santi Pavan Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri LV Bhaskara Reddy, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 36(1)(vii)

Sarvana Developers, Bangalore vs. CIT-1, (iv) Bangalore Order of ITAT Bangalore in ITA.No.620/ Bang./2011 and ITA.No.48/Bang./2013 dated 06.09.2013; Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR (v) 83 (SC); CIT & Another vs. DG Gopala Gowda [2013] 354 (vi) ITR 501 (Karn.HC); 16 ITA.No.625/Hyd

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

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

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

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

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

DHUNI CHAND HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 289/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

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

SH. KASHMIR SINGH SANDHA,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 288/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

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

M/S GANESH DASS HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 287/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

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

SH. ARVAIL SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 286/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

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-4,, CHENNAI

ITA 3261/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 154Section 263Section 80G

prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.\nThis principle has been authoritatively laid down by the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT and reaffirmed\nin CIT v. Max India Ltd. (supra). It is also settled law that where two\nviews are possible

SHILPI MODI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2),, KOLKATA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1965/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2022-2023
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

only on substantial questions of law. For the guidance of the Court, the Revenue has referred to a judgment reported at 243 ITR 83 (Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT) where the Supreme Court emphasised that both limbs of the provision had to be complied with before jurisdiction under Section ... paid were the same. 13. At this juncture, we take note of the decision in the case of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Company Limited Versus Commissioner of Income Tax 1 wherein it was held that every loss of revenue cannot be treated as prejudicial

RAVI MODI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2),, KOLKATA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1964/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2022-2023
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

only on substantial questions of law. For the guidance of the Court, the Revenue has referred to a judgment reported at 243 ITR 83 (Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT) where the Supreme Court emphasised that both limbs of the provision had to be complied with before jurisdiction under Section ... paid were the same. 13. At this juncture, we take note of the decision in the case of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Company Limited Versus Commissioner of Income Tax 1 wherein it was held that every loss of revenue cannot be treated as prejudicial

MUKUL ROHATGI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2427/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Respondent: Shri Sachit Jolly, Senior Advocate
Section 112ASection 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 24Section 263

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). 44. In view of the above discussion on facts and legal precedents

Showing 1–20 of 1,099 · Page 1 of 55

...