← 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

Anjali Sharma, Agra vs. ITO Ward 2(1)(1), Agra

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 77/AGR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 77/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2018-19) Ms. Anjali Singhal Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 22, Vaibhav Kunj, Dayalbagh, Ward 2(1)(1), Agra. Vs. Agra. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Culps-2323-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Pankaj Gargh, Adv. – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assails Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Agra (Pr.Cit) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Vide Impugned Order Dated 21-03-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 01-02-2021. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, Our Adjudication Would Be As Under. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 285 Days In The Appeal Which Stand Condoned. 2. Upon Perusal Of Assessment Order, It Could Be Seen That The Assessee’S Return Of Income Was Selected To Verify The Issue Of Low Income In Comparison To Large Commission Receipt. The Ld. Ao

For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Gargh, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 192Section 263Section 40A(3)

unless it was shown that the view of Ld. AO was erroneous or opposed to any law. 4. 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

Preeti Agrawal, Vaibhav Kunj Dayal Bagh Agra vs. Principal Commissioner Income Tax, Income Tax Agra

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 151/AGR/2024[ay-2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 151/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2018-19) Ms. Preeti Agrawal Pr. Cit- 1, बनाम/ 22, Vaibhav Kunj, Jyoti Road, Agra. Vs. Dayalbagh, Agra. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ahcpa-6085-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Pankaj Gargh, Adv. – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assails Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Agra For (Pr.Cit) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Vide Impugned Order Dated 23-03-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 27-01-2021. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, Our Adjudication Would Be As Under. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 330 Days In The Appeal Which Stand Condoned. 2. Upon Perusal Of Assessment Order, It Could Be Seen That The Assessee’S Return Of Income Was Selected To Verify The Issue Of Low Income In Comparison To Large Commission Receipt. The Ld. Ao

For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Gargh, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 192Section 263Section 40A(3)

unless it was shown that the view of Ld. AO was erroneous or opposed to any law. 4. 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

Shri Ram Saran Mittal, Agra vs. Pr CIT - 1, Agra

The appeal stand allowed as indicated upon conclusion of hearing

ITA 27/AGR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.27/Agr/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बनाम/ Sh. Ram Saran Mittal Ccit(Osd)/Pcit-1, 62-B, Nehru Nagar, Agra. Agra. Vs. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ablpm-2281-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sahib P. Satsangi, Ca – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assails Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Agra (Pr.Cit) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Vide Impugned Order Dated 31-03-2022 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 30-11-2019. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, Our Adjudication Would Be As Under. 2. Upon Perusal Of Assessment Order, It Could Be Seen That The Assessee’S Return Of Income Was Accepted In Scrutiny Assessment. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Notices U/S 142(1) Were Issued To The Assessee Which Were Duly Been Responded To By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Sh. Sahib P. SatsangI, CA – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

suggest that the assessment order was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (243 ITR 83). Respectfully following the same, we would quash impugned revision of the order and restore the assessment order. Delving

Al-Hamd Agro Food Product Pvt. Ltd., Aligarh vs. PCIT-1, Agra

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 37/AGR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 37/Agr/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2016-17) Al-Hamd Agro Food Product P. Ltd. Pr. Cit - 1 बनाम/ C/O Deepak Singh, Advocate Agra. Vs. 2, Court Of Wards Compound, Aligarh. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafca-0964-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Deepak Singh, Adv. – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assails Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Agra (Pr.Cit) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 Vide Impugned Order Dated 31-03-2021 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 02-11-2016. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, Our Adjudication Would Be As Under. 2. Upon Perusal Of Case Records, It Could Be Seen That The Assessee’S Case Was Subjected To Limited Scrutiny. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Notices U/S 142(1) Were Issued To The Assessee Calling For Various Details Which Were Duly Been Responded

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Singh, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Further, no findings have been rendered by Ld. Pr. CIT as to how the order was erroneous. 5. 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

Rukmani Devi Jain, Agra vs. Pr.CIT.-1, Agra

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 30/AGR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 29/Agr/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.30/Agr/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. Rukmani Devi Jain Pr. Cit - 1 बनाम/ 37/396/17, Gopal Kunj Agra. Vs. Agra (Up)-282002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Anxpj-7557-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Deependra Mohan, Ca – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of These Appeals, The Assessee Assails Revision Of Order U/S 263 For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015-16 & 2016-17. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2015-16 Which Assail Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Agra (Pr.Cit) Vide Impugned Order Dated 22-03-2021 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 24-12-2017. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, Our Adjudication Would Be As Under.

For Appellant: Sh. Deependra Mohan, CA – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

unless it was shown that the view of Ld. AO was erroneous or opposed to any law. 5. 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

Rukmani Devi Jain, Agra vs. Pr.CIT-1, Agra

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 29/AGR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 29/Agr/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.30/Agr/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. Rukmani Devi Jain Pr. Cit - 1 बनाम/ 37/396/17, Gopal Kunj Agra. Vs. Agra (Up)-282002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Anxpj-7557-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Deependra Mohan, Ca – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of These Appeals, The Assessee Assails Revision Of Order U/S 263 For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015-16 & 2016-17. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2015-16 Which Assail Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Agra (Pr.Cit) Vide Impugned Order Dated 22-03-2021 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 24-12-2017. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, Our Adjudication Would Be As Under.

For Appellant: Sh. Deependra Mohan, CA – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

unless it was shown that the view of Ld. AO was erroneous or opposed to any law. 5. 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

B.P. Oil Mills Ltd., Agra vs. Pr.CIT-1, Agra

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 25/AGR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Deependra Mohan, CA – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. CIT/DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

unless it was shown that the view of Ld. AO was erroneous or opposed to any law. 5. 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

Gdp Agro & Food Products Pvt Ltd, Gwalior vs. P CIT, Gwalior

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 675/AGR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Deependra Mohan, CA – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263

Further, no findings have been rendered by Ld. Pr. CIT as to how the order was erroneous. 5. 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

Ashok Kumar Sharma, Morena vs. Pr. CIT, Gwalior

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 370/AGR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Navin Gargh, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

unless it was shown that the view of Ld. AO was erroneous or opposed to any law. 5. 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

Pramod Kumar Goyal, Gwalior vs. Pr. CIT, Gwalior

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 368/AGR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 368/Agr/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Pramod Kumar Goyal Pr. Cit बनाम/ (Prop. M/S. Shreyansh Traders) Gwalior Chhutmal Ki Bajariya, Maina Wali Gali, Vs. Dal Bazar, Gwalior(Mp). "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Agspg-1575-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Navin Gargh, Adv. – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assails Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gwalior (Pr.Cit) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Vide Impugned Order Dated 23-03-2018 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 23-03-2016. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, Our Adjudication Would Be As Under. 2. Upon Perusal Of Assessment Order, It Could Be Seen That The Assessee’S Return Of Income Was Scrutinized & During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Notices U/S 142(1) Were Issued Raising Various Queries Against The Assessee. The Assessee Claimed Exemption U/S 54B. Upon Perusal Of Computations & Various

For Appellant: Sh. Navin Gargh, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50CSection 54B

unless it was shown that the view of Ld. AO was erroneous or opposed to any law. 5. 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

Pushp Raj Bohra, Jalore vs. Pr. CIT – 1, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 374/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

could not be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. In support, he placed reliance on the following case laws:- i. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) ii. CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bishnoi (2008) 296 ITR 292 (Raj) iii. CIT(Addl ... Arvind Jewellers [2003] 259 ITR 502, wherein the Division Bench referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. has observed that the provisions of Section 263 cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed

M/S L.B.Wines Private Limitted, Ludhiana vs. Pr.CIT-1, Ludhiana

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 84/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.84/Chandi/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S L.B.Wines Private Ltd. Pr Cit-I B-1, 1446/13A Aaykar Bhawan, बनाम/ Chhoti Haibowal Rishi Nagar Vs. Ludhiana-141001. Ludhiana-141001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Jldlo-0809-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : S/Shri Ashwani Kumar&Aditya Kumar (Ca) & Ms. Muskan Garg (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Rohit Sharma – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-04-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assails Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ludhiana-1 (Pr.Cit) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Vide Impugned Order Dated 23-03-2021 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 22-12-2017. 2. The Ld. Ar Advanced Arguments & Made Out A Case Of One Of The Possible Views. The Ld. Cit-Dr Also Advanced Arguments & Submitted That Ld. Ao Failed To Make Requisite Enquiries On The Issues

For Appellant: S/Shri Ashwani Kumar&Aditya Kumar (CA) and Ms. Muskan Garg (CA) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194ISection 263

unless it was shown that the view of Ld. AO was erroneous or opposed to any law. 5. 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

Shri Princepreetjit Singh, Ranjit Nagar vs. Pr.CIT-1, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 54/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT, DR(Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54BSection 54F

Ld.AO in the original assessment framed u/s 143(3) revisionary proceedings are not maintainable. For this proposition we, rely upon the following judgements:  Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC)  CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del HC)  ITO vs DG Housing Projects

Shri Ganesh Serva Seva Sangha Shripur, Solapur vs. CIT(E), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1230/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1230/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

various judgments relevant for judging the action of the ld. Pr. CIT taken u/s 263. 12. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) has laid down following ratio with regard to provisions of section ... held that: “2. At this stage we may clarify that under para 10 of the judgment in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) this Court has taken the view that the phrase "prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue" under s. 263 has to be read in conjunction

Meenamani Ganga Builder LLP, Pune vs. PCIT (Central), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1027/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1027/Pun/2024

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 263Section 263(1)Section 68

various judgments relevant for judging the action of the ld. Pr. CIT taken u/s 263. 14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) has laid down following ratio with regard to provisions of section ... held that: “2. At this stage we may clarify that under para 10 of the judgment in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) this Court has taken the view that the phrase "prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue" under s.263 has to be read in conjunction with

Hariram Hospital, Alwar vs. PCIT, Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1535/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1535/JPR/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Hariram Hospital Bye Pass Road Hariram Hospital Bhiwadi, Alwar – 310 019 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The Pr.CIT (Central) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAFFH 5746 M अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Himanshu Goyal, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Da

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

prima facie caused prejudice to the interest of the Revenue in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Ltd. vs CIT 243. Conclusively, the ld. PCIT set aside the assessment order and restored to the file of the AO to examine unsecured ... interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC) has held that an order of ITO cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests

Daya Ram, Gurgaon vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2268/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwaldaya Ram, Vs. Pcit, Village Patauda Khera, Rohtak Po Patauda, Distt-Jhajjar, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Avrpr0237L Assessee By : Shri Jai Bhagwan Saini, Adv Revenue By: Shri Surender Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2025

For Appellant: Shri Jai Bhagwan Saini, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR
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. vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC). None of these elements exist in the case at hand. 10. Perusal of the order

The Yanam Co Operative Stores Limited, Yanam vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 45/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Harsha Haridasu, C.AFor Respondent: : Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 237Section 263

erroneous and it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. We also found that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC) has categorically held that unless both the conditions are satisfied, section 263 can be invoked. ITA No.45/Viz/2025

Clix Capital Services Private Limited, Delhi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-1, Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2732/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Clix Capital Services Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Pcit, Plot No. 23, 5Th Floor, Aggarwal Delhi-1, Delhi Corporate Tower Govind Lal Sikka Marg, Rajendra Place, West Delhi, New Delhi, Delhi, India, 110008 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacc0642F

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar Bharati, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 37

Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co Ltd reported in 243 ITR 83 (SC) and Max India Ltd reported in 295 ITR 282 (SC) , among others. 7. In our considered opinion, when due enquiries have

Shree Balaji Associates Pune LLP, Pune vs. PCIT(Central), Pune

ITA 1008/PUN/2024[AY 2019 - 20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Krishna GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 263Section 263(1)Section 43C

make any proper inquiry while accepting the explanation of the assessee insofar as receipt of share application money is concerned. • 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), Hon'ble Supreme Court held ... make any proper inquiry while accepting the explanation of the assessee insofar as receipt of share application money is concerned. • 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), Hon'ble Supreme Court held