← 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

Mahendra Kumar Sharma, Churu vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 725/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. R. P. Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

revenue. Hence liable for revision under section 263 of the Act. She also relies on Apex Court decision in the case of Malabar Industrial Limited vs. CIT 243 ITR which reads as follows:- “….An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement

Sh. Kirodi Mal Singhal, Alwar vs. PCIT(Central), Jaipur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 664/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal in ITA No.664/JP/2024 on the following grounds; "1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, order passed by the Ld. PCIT u/s 263 is illegal & bad in law and the same be quashed. 2. The Ld. PCIT has erred on facts and in law in holding that the

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

view taken by the ld. AO. We get support of our view from the decision of apex court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 where in the Court has taken the view that the phrase "prejudicial to the interests of the revenue

Sh. Kamlesh Singhal, Alwar vs. PCIT(Central), Jaipur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 663/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal in ITA No.664/JP/2024 on the following grounds; "1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, order passed by the Ld. PCIT u/s 263 is illegal & bad in law and the same be quashed. 2. The Ld. PCIT has erred on facts and in law in holding that the

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

view taken by the ld. AO. We get support of our view from the decision of apex court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 where in the Court has taken the view that the phrase "prejudicial to the interests of the revenue

Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Alwar vs. PCIT(Central), Jaipur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 661/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal in ITA No.644/JP/2024 on the following grounds; "1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, order passed by the Ld. PCIT u/s 263 is illegal & bad in law and the same be quashed. 2. The Ld. PCIT has erred on facts and in law in holding that the

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 127Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

interest of the revenue and hence liable for revision under section 263 of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Limited V/s CIT 243 ITR it has held as under- ..... An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy

Sh. Rajeev Jain, Alwar vs. PCIT(Central), Jaipur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 644/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 127Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

interest of the revenue and hence liable for revision under section 263 of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Limited V/s CIT 243 ITR it has held as under- ..... An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy

Fatehpuria Transformers and Switchgears Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 224/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

interest of the revenue and hence liable for revision under section 263 of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Limited V/s CIT 243 ITR it has held as under- “An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy ... profession and no deduction or allowance shall be made in respect of such expenditure.] The Hon'ble Supreme court in the matter of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. commissioner of income tax [2000]109 Taxman 66(SC) held that, "A bare reading of section 263(1) makes it clear that

Arvind Kumar Agrawal, Gurgaon vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Incoem Tax Department

In the results, the appeal of assessee stands dismissed

ITA 139/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Kataria, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

revision under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The 4 Arvind Kumar Agrawal vs. PCIT Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Limited V/s CIT 243 ITR it has held as under- “….An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy

Keller (M) Sdn Bhd, Chennai vs. DCIT Intl Tax 1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1319/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1319/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Keller (M) Sdn Bhd, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, Centennial Square, International Taxation 1(2) No.6A, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. [Pan: Aagck 8014M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Ashik Shah, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

For Appellant: Shri. Ashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 239Section 263

Citation Page No. 1 Max India Ltd. Supreme Court 295 ITR 282 3 Max India Ltd. HC-P&H 268 ITR 128 5 3 Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. Supreme Court 243 ITR 83 7 4 Virtusa Consulting Services HC-Madras 442 ITR 385 12 (P.) Ltd. 5 Sunbeam Auto ... enquiry with respect to transactions carried out by the assessee. 25. Further, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., enunciates the meaning and intent of the phrase ’prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue’, in the following words:- ’8.The phrase ‘prejudicial

The National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhawan

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20

ITA 2481/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Ι.Τ.Α. No. 2480 /Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 2481 /Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) The National Bank Of Agriculture & Rural Development C-24, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aaact4020G Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant/Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Adv. & Shri Niraj Sheth & Shri Gunjan Kakkad, Ar Revenue/Respondent By : Shri S. Srinivasu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2024 Order Per Padmavathy S, Am: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai 3 [In Short 'The Pcit'] Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 14.03.2024 For

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

debatable issue. In this regard it is relevant quote the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd vs CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) — 9. The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue' has to be read in conjunction with ... interest of the revenue. In view of above discussions and applying the ratio laid down by the Apex court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd (supra) we hold that the conclusion of the PCIT that the order passed by the AO is erroneous is not tenable and liable

The National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20

ITA 2480/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

debatable issue. In this regard it is relevant quote the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd vs CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) – 9. The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue' has to be read in conjunction with ... interest of the revenue. In view of above discussions and applying the ratio laid down by the Apex court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd (supra) we hold that the conclusion of the PCIT that the order passed by the AO is erroneous is not tenable and liable

Ved Prakash & Sons Liumbers Pvt Ltd, Karnal vs. Pr. CIT, Karnal

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4079/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganeh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 40A(2)(b)

assessment order. Ved Prakash & Sons Liumbers Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT 13. Learned Authorised Representative for the appellant/assessee submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2000 (2) TMI 10- Supreme Court, dated 10.02.2000 observed that: "A bare reading of this provision makes ... assessee. Ved Prakash & Sons Liumbers Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT 25. Further, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., enunciates the meaning and intont-of the phrase "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue", in the following words:- “8. The phrase "prejudicial

Thayappa Balakrishna, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1027/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Thayappa Balakrishna, No. 987, 11Th Main, The Principal 1St Block, Commissioner Of 3Rd Stage, Income-Tax, Basaveshwaranagar, Bengaluru – 1. Vs. Bangalore – 560 079. Pan: Abdpb4893N Appellant Respondent : Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

Airways(supra), do not find any force in the argument of the Ld.DR. 4.6. We now 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 the exercise of jurisdiction

Featherlite Office Systems Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1007/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 153Section 153ASection 263

insofar as prejudicial to the interest of revenue”. The assessee placed heavy reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 243 ITR 83 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed the view that, in case the officer does

Raghuleela Estates Private Limited, Bandra, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2595/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A/RFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT, D/R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 24BSection 263

While coming to the aforementioned conclusion, we draw support from 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

Raghuleela Estates Private Limited, Bandra, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2594/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A/RFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT, D/R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

itself.” 11. While coming to the aforementioned conclusion, we draw support from 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

Ashok Kumar Jain, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1394/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

under:- 21. In the light of the above discussion and on relying on the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. and LG Electronics India patent failure on the part of the Assessing (P) Ltd. (supra), it is held that there is patent Officer

Jagriti Job Finder Private Limited, New Delhi vs. PCIT Central - 1, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2133/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishram/S Jagriti Job Finder Vs. Pcit (Central) -1 Private Limited, 222, 2Nd New Delhi-110055 Floor Hemkunt Chamber, 89, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110019 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcj5974E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Pandey
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

plain and basic reading of the said section but also has been emphatically upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. CIT, reported in (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) also relied upon by the Ld. A.R. 18. Thus, having regard

Kims Health Care Manangement Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The DCIT, Trivandrum

ITA 143/COCH/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

sec.143(3) r.w.s. 153A assessment herein dated 29.12.2017 is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to interest of the Revenue attracting sec.263 revision jurisdiction as per Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and PCIT’s impugned sec.263 revision directions are not sustainable in above terms. The assessee

Kims Health Care Manangement Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The DCIT, Trivandrum

ITA 142/COCH/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

sec.143(3) r.w.s. 153A assessment herein dated 29.12.2017 is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to interest of the Revenue attracting sec.263 revision jurisdiction as per Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and PCIT’s impugned sec.263 revision directions are not sustainable in above terms. The assessee

Mylan Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, Circle-5 (1), Hyderabad

In the result, the ground no

ITA 206/HYD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 263Section 37

No.206/Hyd/2021 9 by the AO is completely unsustainable in law. This proposition is forthcoming from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Limited v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) [Para 9]: 3.13 In the instant case, the learned AO after duly examining the facts ... reproduced as under : “Arguments by DR 9. The assessee challenged the review under Section 263 by relying on the decision of Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Limited 243 ITR 83. The assessee argued that in light of the above decision, an order can be reviewed under Section 263 only