← 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

Gujarat Metal Cast Industries Private Limited, Vadodara vs. The Pr. CIT, Vadodara-1, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee lacks merit and is

ITA 551/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.551/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Gujarat Metal Cast Industries Private Limited Village : Garadhiya Jarod Samlaya Road Vadodara – 391 520 (Gujarat) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacg 8433 G Ther Pr.Cit, Vadodara-1, Vadodara-390 007 V/S. अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri A.P. Singh, Cit-Dr & Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 01/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vadodara-1 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Pcit"], Dated 29.02.2024, Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018–19, Setting Aside The Assessment Order Dated 12.04.2021 Passed By National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi (Assessing Officer) [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”] Under Section 143(3) R.W.S.143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR &
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

assessee's reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) is also misplaced. The said decision holds that where two views are possible and the AO adopts one, the order cannot be revised

Sebco Property Private Limited, Trichy vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central - 2, Chennai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1592/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1592/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रणवष' / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Sebco Property Private Limited Pcit (Central) बनाम/ 24D, Mahalakshmi Nagar, Chennai-2. Vs. K.K. Nagar, Trichy-620 021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-0810-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman (Ca) - Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-03-2025 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 (Central), Chennai-2 (Pr.Cit) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 Vide Impugned Order Dated 25-03-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S.153A R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Act On 31-03-2022. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: - 1. That The Revision Order Dated 25.03.2024 Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central - 2, Chennai ["Ld. Pcit"] U/S. 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ["Act"] Is Without Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Barred By Limitation. 2. That The Assessment Order Dated 31.03.2022 Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.143(3) R.W.S 153A Of The Act Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Revenue, Thus The Ld. Pcit Erred In Initiating Revisionary Proceedings U/S.263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

could not be said to be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 8. 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 an erroneous order passed