← 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

Rtv International, Solan vs. Pr.CIT, Shimla

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 131/CHANDI/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 131/Chandi/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S Rtv Vision Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Pr. Cit बनाम/ (Successor Of M/S Rtv International) Shimla. Plot No.G-97, Site-5, Upsidc Vs. Kasna Industrial Area, Greater Noida "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccr-4395-J / Aalfr-8106-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sameer Kapoor- Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15-07-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Assailing Proposed Revision Of The Order U/S 263 As Passed By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shimla (Pr. Cit) On 22-03-2019 Has Come Up For Hearing Pursuant To The Order Of Hon’Ble High Court Of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla In Ita No.01 Of 2025 Dated 28-05-2025. The Directions Of Hon’Ble Court Are As Under: - 3. In The Given Facts & Circumstances, We Deem It Appropriate To Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Set Aside Orders Dated

For Appellant: Shri Sameer Kapoor- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

unless it was shown that the view of Ld. AO was erroneous or opposed to any law. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) has held that the phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue has to be read in conjunction with

Yogeshkumar Harishbhai Mali, Surat vs. PCIT, Surat-1, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 420/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.420/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Yogeshkumar Harishbhai Mali, Principal Commissioner Of बनाम/ 117, Khambhati Panchni Waid Income-Tax, Surat-1, Income Tax Vs. Rustompura, Surat - 395002 Office, 123, 1Stfloor, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abdpm 3296 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (प्र"थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Aashish Pophare, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 04/06/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2025

Section 114BSection 115BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 69A

also short levy of tax of Rs.30,72,000/-. He has relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Malabar Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), CIT vs. Paville Projects (P.) Ltd. (2023) 149 taxmann.com 115 (SC), CIT vs. NageshKnitwears ... inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order as the circumstances of the case justify. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) held that every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the AO cannot be treated as prejudicial