← 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

Naresh Kumar Bhargava, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 221/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan SoganiFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Dhaka, CIT
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

record and failed to invoke the applicable provisions of law. Thus, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Limited Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 she directed the ld. AO to make necessary verification, determine and finalise the assessment in accordance with the prevalent ... twin conditions of “error in the order” and “prejudice cause to the revenue” coexist. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd [2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC) held that “…A bare reading of this provision makes it clear that the pre-requisite to 24 Naresh Kumar

Hatch Tact Innovations Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1261/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2016-17 Hatch Tact Innovations Private Vs Pr. Cit, Limited, Faridabad. C2/215, Jal Vayu Towers, Sector 56, Gurgaon (Haryana) – 122 002. Pan: Aadch5527R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K. Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr & Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.06.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR &
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

opinion or possibility of a second view is not sustainable in law vide CIT v. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC). 2 (a) On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Ld. PCIT

Vipul Kumar Modi, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur -I

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 310/JPR/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Ranka &For Respondent: Shri Anil Dhaka (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 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 ... interest of the Revenue, unless the view taken by the AO is totally unsustainable in law. We draw strength from case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and also from the case of CIT vs. Max India

Worley India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commission of Income Tax 2, Mumbai

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

ITA 554/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

Revenue”. This provision has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in several judgments to which it is now necessary to turn. In Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83, the Supreme Court held that the provision “cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake ... Revenue unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law.” The principle which has been laid down in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) has been followed and explained in a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India

M/S.Sudchemie India P. Ltd, Ernakulam vs. The ACIT, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 51/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Radhesh Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

ensuing assessment being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, liable for revision, toward which the ld. Pr. CIT cites Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) and Raja & Co. vs. CIT [2011] 335 ITR 381 (Ker). Non-application of mind ... Chemie India Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT as explained by the Apex Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra), is one of the ingredients that renders an order as prejudicial and erroneous to the interest of the Revenue. Absence or lack of enquiry is an attribute, a manifestation, of this

Gangaur Exports Private Limited, Jaipur vs. The PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result grounds raised by the assessee are allowed and order of Ld

ITA 362/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 135Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 5Section 80GSection 80I

power to review his own. In this regard, we draw strength from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 159 CTR (SC) 1: (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC). We also draw strength from the decision

Rakesh Kumar Jain, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 67/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2020-21 Rakesh Kumar Jain, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 1-10-1/ 1, Flat No.301, Income Tax, Ratna Rekha Apartment, Central Circle – 1(4), Hyderabad – 500020, Hyderabad. Telangana. Pan : Alzpj1233A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2024 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2020-21 Arises From Order Of Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Hyderabad (“ Ld. Pcit”) Dt.06.11.2023 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”). 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 115BSection 132ASection 143(3)Section 153DSection 263Section 44ASection 69A

possible view. Hence in our opinion it cannot be said that the Ld. AO has failed to make any enquiry. In the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT[2000] 243 ITR 83(SC), the honorable Supreme Court held that every loss of tax cannot be said

Mohammed Gyasuddin, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir.-30, Kolkata

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

ITA 571/KOL/2020[2012-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2024AY 2012-12

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 269SSection 271D

various judgments relevant for judging the action of the ld. Pr. CIT taken u/s 263. 11. 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

Mohammed Gyasuddin, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir.-30, Kolkata

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

ITA 570/KOL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 269SSection 271D

various judgments relevant for judging the action of the ld. Pr. CIT taken u/s 263. 11. 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

Twara Diam, Bhavnagar vs. PCIT Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 90/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv., Shri Parimalsinh BFor Respondent: Shri Karun K Ojha, CIT D.R
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

explanation given by the assessee in this case, however, was simply not a legally possible view of the matter. Even in the case of Malabar Industrial Co Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 109 Taxman 66/243 ITR 83, the Supreme Court has observed that 'when an ITO adopted one of the courses

M/S Olympus Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Cir-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1088/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 May 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1088/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Olympus Suppliers Pvt Ltd.……..…………............…...……………....Appellant 15/B, Clive Row, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aabco0624Q] Vs. Pcit, Circle-2, Kolkata……….…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 13, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 23.03.2015 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. This Is A Second Round Of Litigation Before Us. Earlier, The Assessee Had Filed Appeal Before This Tribunal Against The Impugned Order Of The Pr. Cit Passed U/S 263 Of The Act, However, The Said Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed Along With Three Other Cases By A Common Order Dated 05.08.2016. Being Aggrieved By The Said Order, The Assessee Preferred Further Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Calcutta High Court Bearing No. Itat/328/2017 Ia No.Ga/2/2017 (Old No.Ga/3184/2017). It Was Pleaded Before The Hon’Ble Calcutta High Court That The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed Along With Other Appeals, However, The Specific

Section 143(1)Section 151Section 263

various judgments relevant for judging the action of the ld. Pr. CIT taken u/s 263. 11. 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

Urmila Uttam Jhavar, Mumbai vs. Faceless, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 208/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal: A.Y : 2018-19 Urmila Uttam Jhavar Vs Principal Commissioner Of 2 Homestead, . Income Tax Officer, Mumbai. 16, Dattatraya Road, Santa Cruz, (Respondent) Mumbai 400 054. Pan : Aaapj8879N (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

Revenue”. This provision has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in several judgments to which it is now necessary to turn. In Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83, the Supreme Court held that the provision “cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake ... Revenue unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law.” The principle which has been laid down in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) has been followed and explained in a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India

Ramotar Choudhari HUF, Kolkata vs. PCIT 5 Kolkata, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1336/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1336/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ramotar Choudhari Huf.……..…………............…...……………....Appellant 7Th Floor, R.N 25 Fortuna Tower, 23A N.S. Road, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aanhr9093K] Vs. Pcit-5, Kolkata………….…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Pransukha, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 06, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 09, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 18.10.2023 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Pr. Cit In Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act & Thereby Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame The Assessment Afresh. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,55,970/- On 21.01.2014. Thereafter, An Information Was Received By The Assessing Officer From Investigation Wing That The Assessee Has

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 263

show any nexus between the assessee and the entry operator. The assessee has placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. and decision of Gujarat High Court in case of CIT Vs Arvind Jeweller 259 ITR 502. 6.2 On examination of records ... various judgments relevant for judging the action of the ld. Pr. CIT taken u/s 263. 11. 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

Nuclear Fuel Complex Employees Cooperative Credit Society, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-15(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 114/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri K. Meghnath Chowhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

satisfaction of the twin conditions under section 263 of the Act as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., vs. CIT [2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC). On this score, the assessee succeeds. 7. Be that as it may, even on merits

Deepak Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 809/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.809/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deepak Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd….…......................…...……………....Appellant 48/6, Suman Villa, 2Nd Floor, 155, Jessore Road, Kolkata-700055. [Pan: Aabcd1131H] Vs. Pcit, Asansol….....….........................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 08, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 07, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 30.12.2022 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Pr. Cit In Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act & Thereby Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame The Assessment Afresh. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Appeal Is Time-Barred By 158 Days. A Separate Application Of Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Wherein, It Has Been Pleaded That After Receipt Of The Impugned Order Of The Pr. Cit, The Assessee, Through Its Director, Shri Deep Kishan Saraf, Immediately Approached One Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal, Chartered

Section 253Section 263Section 5

order erroneous on the ground that the Assessing Officer should have made further enquiries. 5.2 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT reported in (2000) 243 ITR 83, 87-88(SC) affirming the Hon'ble Kerela High Court decision ... various judgments relevant for judging the action of the ld. Pr. CIT taken u/s 263. 11. 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

Gurjant Singh, Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 356/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. K.Gogra (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 271ASection 44ASection 68

penalty ld. PCIT considering the provisions of section 263 and considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Limited vs. CIT 243 ITR wherein it has been held as under:- “An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy ... erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, unless the view taken by the AO is totally unsustainable in law. Kindly refer Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 159 CTR (SC) 1: (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC). 1.2 Also kindly refer CIT vs. Max India

Pallathukadavil Ibrahimkutty Abdul Kabeer, Ernakulam vs. The PCIT Kochi-1, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed on the above terms, and his SA dismissed

ITA 428/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Judicialmember & Sa No. 78/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Pallathukadavil Ibrahimkutty Principal Cit – 1 Abdul Kabeer C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road 71, Pallathukadavil Vs. Kochi 682018 Kanjoor P.O., Ernakulam 682575 [Pan: Aaopi0584P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Padmanathan K.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 54B

heart is the charge by the revisionary authority in the instant case. Non-application of mind, as explained by the Apex Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC), is one of the ingredients that renders an order as prejudicial and erroneous to the interest

Disney Broadcasting (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1884/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)Section 43(6)(c)

Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Paville Projects (P) Ltd. [2023 SCC On Line SC 371], while relying upon Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., has discussed the sanctity of two-fold conditions for Page No. 16 ITA NO. 1884/MUM/2023 (A.Y: 2017-18) Disney Broadcasting (India) Private Limited the purpose ... under:- "27. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee has heavily relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd, (supra). It is true that in the said decision and on interpretation of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, it is observed

G.S.Atwal & Co (Engg) Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT, Kol-2, Kol, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 524/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 524/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 G.S. Atwal & Co. (Engg.) Pvt. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax - Ltd. Vs 2, Kolkata 4B, Little Russell Street Kolkata - 700071 [Pan : Aabcg0816E] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri S. Datta, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata -2, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”] Dt. 29/03/2023, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Common Issue Raised In The Various Grounds Of Appeal Is Against Invalid Exercise Of Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act Thereby Passing Revisionary Order U/S 263 Of The Act Dt. 29/03/2023, Setting Aside & Revising The Assessment Framed U/S 143(3)/143(3A) & (3B) Of The Act Dt. 29/03/2021. 3. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Filed Its Original Return Of Income On 19/09/2018 Declaring Total Loss Of Rs.4,24,51,417/-. Subsequently, The Return Was Revised On 23/09/2019 Declaring Total Loss

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/RFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, CIT, D/R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 5. We draw strength from the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT 243 ITR 83(SC) wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that the twin condition has to be satisfied

Jai Parkash, Fatehabad vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1675/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2018-19 Jai Parkash, Vs. Principal Commissoiner Of Bhattu Road, Income Tax, Rohtak Near Anaj Mandi, Fatehabad – 125050 Haryana (Pan: Amypk5328D) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viii)

deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income in the year of receipt The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd V/s CIT in 243 ITR 83(SC) has held that both the pre requisites for invoking the provisions of Section 263 must ... 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. 11. Perusal of the order