← 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

Sri Manakula Vinayaga Educational Trust, Puducherry vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(3), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1236/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1236/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sri Manakula Vinayaga Educational Trust Dcit बनाम/ 24, Mariamman Koil Street, Madagadipet, Central Circle-3(3) Vs. Puducherry-605 107. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatm-9599-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri J. Prabhakar (Fca) - Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11-09-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-10-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri J. Prabhakar (FCA) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 161(2)Section 164Section 164(2)Section 263

taken in the matter. The same is not shown to be in violation of any statutory provisions. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (109 Taxman 66) has held that the phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue has to be read

Vishal Balvantrai Agarwal, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad -1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 226/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.226/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Vishal Balvantrai Agarwal The Pr.Cit बनाम/ 249 New Cloth Market Ahmedabad-1 V/S. O/S. Raipur Gate Ahmedabad – 380 002 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Adbpa 4462 G (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Divyakant Parikh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Divyakant Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 57

prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The twin requirements for invoking Section 263, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [(2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC)], are that (i) the order of the AO must be erroneous, and (ii) it must ... based on the available Vishal Balvantrai Agarwal vs. The Pr.CIT Asst. Year : 2018-19 evidence. As per the Supreme Court’s dictum in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, for an order to be revised under Section 263 of the Act, it must be both erroneous and prejudicial

Gauttam Nipinbhai Nagarsheth, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 154/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.154/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Gautam Nipinbhai The Pr.Cit-3, बनाम/ Nagarsheth Ahmedabad V/S. D-37, Aaryaman Bungalows Nr.Railway Crossing Opp. Anand Niketan School Thaltej Shilaj, Thaltej Ahmedabad – 380 059 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aakpn 7077 J (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Rajvaidya, Ca Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11-03-2022 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Ahmedabad (Hereinafter Referred To As “Pcit”) Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of The Pcit, Wherein The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Has Been Set Aside On The Gautam Nipinbhai Nagarsheth Vs. The Pr.Cit-3 Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rajvaidya, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57Section 68

notional rent is also factually incorrect. 5.5. It is well-settled proposition of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) that the power of revision under Section 263 cannot be exercised to correct each

Mr.Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1513/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1508/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1509/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1510/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1511/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1512/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1513/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Mr. Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen Pcit (Central) बनाम/ 42, Maraikayar Street, Ii Floor, Chennai-1. Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Vs. Chennai-600 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aawpi-0038-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Lavanya (Ca) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-08-2024

For Appellant: Ms. Lavanya (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 153CSection 263

statutory provisions. The estimation of Ld. AO was based on factual position emerging during the assessment proceedings. 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

Mr.Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1512/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1508/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1509/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1510/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1511/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1512/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1513/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Mr. Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen Pcit (Central) बनाम/ 42, Maraikayar Street, Ii Floor, Chennai-1. Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Vs. Chennai-600 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aawpi-0038-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Lavanya (Ca) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-08-2024

For Appellant: Ms. Lavanya (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 153CSection 263

statutory provisions. The estimation of Ld. AO was based on factual position emerging during the assessment proceedings. 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