← All Phrases

“Malabar Industrial”

Judicial DoctrinesMalabar - 263Malabar - 2631,099 judgments

The decision most relied on for Malabar Industrial is Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (243 ITR 83), cited in 2,943 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Malabar Industrial

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT
243 ITR 83 · 2000 · Supreme Court
2,943
citing judgments

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.

CIT v. Max India Ltd.
295 ITR 282 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,162
citing judgments

Under Section 263, an assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue merely because the Principal Commissioner disagrees with the Assessing Officer's (AO) view, particularly if the AO has adopted one of two permissible views in law, unless that view is completely unsustainable. If due inquiries were made, the AO's order does not become erroneous solely because the fact of inquiries was not recorded.

Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT
67 ITR 84 · 1968 · Supreme Court
616
citing judgments

An assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interests if the Assessing Officer accepts a sum offered as income by an assessee, even when that sum was not actually earned, thereby allowing revision under Section 263.

CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan
384 ITR 200 · 2016 · Supreme Court
264
citing judgments

The Commissioner's revisional power under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act is not limited to the points specified in the show-cause notice, nor is the exercise of this power contingent upon issuing a show-cause notice.

Mantola Co-operative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. v. CIT
50 Taxmann.com 278 · 2014 · High Court
242
citing judgments

A cooperative society is not entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for interest income earned from investments and deposits which are not attributable to its primary business. An assessment order erroneously allowing such a deduction is revisable under Section 263 as being erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, or subject to reassessment under Section 147.

Narayan Tatu Rane v. ITO
70 Taxmann.com 227 · 2016 · ITAT
220
citing judgments

Before revising an assessment order under Section 263, the CIT/PCIT must conduct their own inquiries or verifications to establish that the Assessing Officer's order is erroneous and unsustainable in law, rather than merely directing further inquiry or pointing out the AO's lack of inquiry.

DIT v. Jyoti Foundation
357 ITR 388 · 2013 · High Court
210
citing judgments

An assessment order cannot be deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer conducted an inquiry and applied their mind during the original assessment, as Explanation 2 to Section 263 does not permit unending inquiries by the revisional authority.

Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CIT
321 ITR 92 · 2010 · High Court
194
citing judgments

This case clarifies the scope of the Commissioner's revisional powers under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, holding that an assessment order can only be revised if it is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, echoing the principles laid down in Malabar Industrial.

Judgments citing Malabar Industrial

M/S.Mahogany Logistics Services Pvt. Ltd., Madurai vs. PCIT, Madurai-1

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

ITA 1631/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1631/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Mahogany Logistics Services Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax-1, 10, Jawahar Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai. Madurai 625 002. [Pan:Aafcd8781R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Madurai Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company [Earlier Known As M/S. Drsr Logistics Services Private Limited] Filed Its Return Of Income For The Ay 2018-19 Claiming Loss Of ₹.31,28,98,436/- Under 2

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 139(9)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 263Section 36Section 37Section 40

Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. MAX India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC) and also in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC), submits, while referring to Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) and vehemently argues that if one of the two conditions

Nirmal Bang Securities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai 4, Mumbai

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed

ITA 2454/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Nirmal Bang Securities P. Ltd. Pcit B-2, Marathon Innova, Aayakar Bhavan Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Vs. M.K. Road Opp. Peninsula Corporate Churchgate Lower Parel West Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 013. Pan : Aaacn7369I Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: Shri Anant N. Pai
Section 135Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 80GSection 80G(2)(iiihk)

Assessing Officer does not examine an important issue during assessment, the order can be revised under Section 263. This principle is also supported by Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [(2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC)], where it was held that an order passed without proper inquiry or with incorrect application ... cases-law of Hon'ble Supreme Court relied on by the Ld. DR. CIT Vs. Amitabh Bachchan 384 ITR 200 (SC) and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83(SC). In the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the view of ITAT

Strata Geosystems (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -8, Mumbai

ITA 2447/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Strata Geosystems (India) P. Ltd. Pcit Plot No. A-15/16, Sabnam 6Th Floor House, Central Cross Road B Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Midc, Andheri East M.K. Road Mumbai-400 093. Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aaics3717K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 135Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80G

Bachchan [(2016) 384 ITR 200 (SC)] observed that non-enquiry into a significant claim may render the assessment order vulnerable to revision. Similarly, in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [(2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC)], the Court held that orders passed without application of mind or proper verification are amenable

M/S. Nippon Life India A/F Management Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai -8, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2291/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Nippon Life India Aif Pcit-8 Management Limited Room No. 611 4Th Floor, Tower A Vs. 6Th Floor Peninsula Business Park Aayakar Bhavan Ganpatrao Kadam Marg M.K. Road Lower Parel Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 013. Pan : Aabcr 7663L Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Jitendra Sanghavi, CA
Section 135Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT Vs.Amitabh Bachchan, (2016) 384 ITR 200 and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83, for the proposition that if the Ld. AO does not make proper enquiries, the assessment order becomes erroneous ... conducted enquiries and placing reliance of the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Amitabh Bachchan and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) is not correct. These decisions will come to the rescue of Revenue where Ld. AO does not conduct any enquiries on the issue in question

B. Arunkumar Capital & Credit Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 3, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly

ITA 2034/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

permissible in law, he cannot be faulted- which is a sine qua non for invoking the powers under section 263. In the case of Malabar Industrial Co Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 109 Тахтап 66/243 ITR 83, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "Every loss of revenue as a consequence ... that prior to the amendment, the scope of these words were explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We refer to the decision of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in (2000) 243 ITR 83 Hon'ble Supreme Court inter alia laid down that, the prerequisite for exercise

Sanjiv Soshil Mehta, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 5(2), Kautilya Bhavan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2096/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Income-tax – 1, Mumbai
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 90

there being ay application of mind. 8. Our view is fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., 243 ITR 83 (SC), where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the following ratio:- “A bare reading of section ... said word 'profits' existed. In our view the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 as also by the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Russell Properties

Radhey Shyam Saini, Hisar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2359/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15 Vs. Pcit, Sh. Radhey Shyam Saini, H. No. 1174/334, Rohtak Ramlila Chowk, Hisar, Haryana Pan: Bxhps4356Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Kuldeep Khera, Ca Sh. Mohit Girdhar, Ca Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.07.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15, Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [In Short, The “Pcit”], Rohtak’S Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023- 24/1062878555(1), Dated 18.03.2024 Involving Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 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 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

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. 7 | P a g e vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC). None of these elements exist in the case at hand. 10. Perusal

Shammi Nagpal HUF, Hisar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2358/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. Pcit, Shammi Nagpal Huf, H. No. 7, Sector-13, Hissar, Rohtak Haryana Pan: Aazhs3505D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Kuldeep Khera, Ca Sh. Mohit Girdhar, Ca Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.07.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14, Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (In Short “The Pcit”), Rohtak’S Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023- 24/1062887031(1), Dated 19.03.2024 Involving Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 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 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

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. 7 | P a g e vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC). None of these elements exist in the case at hand. 10. Perusal

Avinash Dattatray Muley, Pune vs. PCIT, Pune

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

ITA 624/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 48Section 54B

mind and without conducting proper inquiry. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co.Ltd. [(2000) (243 ITR 83(SC)], wherein it was clearly held that the Commissioner of Income tax is within his jurisdiction to set aside the assessment ... Nirav Modi 390 ITR 292 (Bombay) vii) CIT Vs. Nirav Modi (2017) 77 taxmann.com 15 (SC) viii) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (243 ITR 83) 10. The Ld. DR on the other hand drew the attention of the Bench to the findings of the Ld. PCIT while assuming jurisdiction

ITO, Ward-2(1), Thane vs. Chalk Farm Ventures Private Limited, Bhayender East

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

ITA 3492/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: The Hon'Ble High Court. 2. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case, Since The Revenue Is In Appeal Before The Hon'Ble High Court On The Itat'S Decision, Which Is Pending As On Date, This Appeal Is Being Filed To Keep The Issue Alive. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend Or Alter Any Ground/Grounds, Which May Be Necessary.”

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

possible view. The assessment is not further liable to be reopened. In this regard, we also find support of the law settled in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. V CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd.(1993)203ITR108,CITVs.NiravModi(2017)390ITR292,C ITVs.Chemsword

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

said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 5.4 Reliance is also placed on the following judicial decisions: 7 i) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, (2000) 243 ITR 83(SC). ii) Housing Projects Ltd, 74 DTR 153, High Court of Delhi. iii) DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation

Ircon Soma Tollway (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Specialo Range-4, New Delhi

The appeals are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1198/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Ircon Soma Tollway (P) Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Ltd., B-4/45, Ground Floor, Income Tax, Range-4, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aabci4622C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri VK Aggarwal, AR & Shri HritikFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250(6)Section 263

TIOL-203-SC-IT "2. At this stage we may clarify that under para 10 of the judgment in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Limited this Court has taken the view that the phrase "prejudicial to the interest of the revenue" under Sec. 263 has to be read

Ircon Soma Tollway (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Specialo Range-4, New Delhi

The appeals are dismissed as

ITA 1197/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri VK Aggarwal, AR & Shri HritikFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250(6)Section 263

TIOL-203-SC-IT "2. At this stage we may clarify that under para 10 of the judgment in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Limited this Court has taken the view that the phrase "prejudicial to the interest of the revenue" under Sec. 263 has to be read

M/S Ircon Soma Tollway (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT-4, New Delhi

The appeals are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 3390/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Ircon Soma Tollway (P) Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Ltd., B-4/45, Ground Floor, Income Tax, Range-4, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aabci4622C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri VK Aggarwal, AR & Shri HritikFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250(6)Section 263

TIOL-203-SC-IT "2. At this stage we may clarify that under para 10 of the judgment in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Limited this Court has taken the view that the phrase "prejudicial to the interest of the revenue" under Sec. 263 has to be read

M/S Ircon Soma Tollway (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT-4, New Delhi

The appeals are dismissed as

ITA 3389/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri VK Aggarwal, AR & Shri HritikFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250(6)Section 263

TIOL-203-SC-IT "2. At this stage we may clarify that under para 10 of the judgment in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Limited this Court has taken the view that the phrase "prejudicial to the interest of the revenue" under Sec. 263 has to be read

Shah Rakesh Bhikhabhai (HUF), Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 415/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Chavda, ARFor Respondent: Shri A P Singh, CIT. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 80G

these two deductions are concerned. 20. Let us take the guidance of judicial precedents laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Malabar Industries Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83(SC) wherein their Lordship have held that twin conditions needs to be satisfied before exercising revisional jurisdiction ... examined one has to understand what is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries (supra) held that this phrase i.e. "prejudicial to the interest of the revenue" has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed

Marathwada Nagari Sahakari Path Sanstha Maryadit, Kalyan vs. Assessing Officer, Ward 1(1), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3346/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Prabhash Shankarmarathwada Nagari Sahakari V/S. Assessing Officer, Ward – Path Sanstha Maryadit, बनाम 1(1), Mohan Plaza, Wayle Shop No. 06, 1St Floor, Nagar, Khadakpada, Kalyan Dhamnikar Plaza, Bhiwandi, – 421301, Maharashtra Thane – 421302, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaam9150E Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Sushant Alme, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT- DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

invoking the provision of section 80P(4).In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following decisions:  Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83(SC),  CIT vs. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC),  Quepem Urban Co-operative Credit Society ... that the twin condition as enunciated P a g e | 11 A.Y. 2020-21 Marathwada Nagari Sahakari Path Sanstha Maryadit by celebrated case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (243 ITR 83) are clearly made out in the present case. The ld. CIT-DR prayed for dismissal of appeal

Veej Company Sevakanchi Sahakari Path Sanstha Ltd., Kalyan vs. Assessing Officer, Ward 3(1), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3341/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Prabhash Shankarveej Company Sevakanchi V/S. Assessing Officer, Ward – Sahakari Path Sanstha बनाम 3(1), Rani Mansion, 2Nd Ltd.,Shramik Sahakar, Usha Floor, Kalyan Murbad Road, Sankul Valiper Road, Oak Thane - 421 301, Baug, Thane - 421301, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaam2266M Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Sushant Alme,ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna (CIT - DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

invoking the provision of section 80P(4). In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following decisions:  Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83(SC),  CIT vs. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC),  Quepem Urban Co-operative Credit Society ... only erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The ld. DR submits that the twin condition as enunciated by celebrated case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (243 ITR 83) are clearly made out in the present case. The ld. CIT-DR prayed for dismissal of appeal

M/S. Green Earth Biogas Pvt. Ltd., Surendranagar vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

ITA 185/RJT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.185/Rjt/2023

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Pungalia, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN

Jeevandeep Edumedia Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle CIT-6, Mumbai

In the result, the a In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands allowed

ITA 2517/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jeevandeep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit-6, 1St Floor, Sun Paradise Business 501,5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Plaza, Senapati Bapat Marg, Vs. Maharishi Karve Road, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aabcj 0180 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Parikh
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

stands well Section 263 of the Act, stands well-settled by the decisio settled by the decision of this Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [(2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC)], [(2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC)], wherein it is held that for assumption