← 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

National Securities Depository Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT-8, Mumbai

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

ITA 1918/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blenational Securities Depository Limited V. Pr.Cit-8 4Th Floor, A-Wing Room No. 611, 6Th Floor Trade World, Kamala Mills Compound Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aadcn9802F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Percy Pardiwala & Shri Jeet Kamdae Department Represented By : Shri S. Srinivasu

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 43B

attracted to the facts of the case by relying on the decision in the case of Hon'ble Supreme Court Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC). 4. Accordingly, he issued notice under section 263 of the Act to the assessee and in response assessee

Karamveer Electronics Limited, Meerut vs. Pr, CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1223/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Devashish Bhadauria, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 56(2)

made enquiry in respect of issue of shares. 16. In the light of the afore-stated facts the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., 243 ITR 83, has laid down the following ratio: "A bare reading of section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, makes

Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Pr.CIT-2, Baroda

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 911/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Principal Commissioner Of Paschim Gujarat Vij. Co. Ltd., Income-Tax-2, Off. Nana Mava Main Road, Vs. Vadodara Laxmi Nagar, Rajkot-360004 Pan : Aadcp 1453 C अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02.02.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vadodara-2 [Herein-After Referred To As “Pcit”] Dated 27.03.2019, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “(1) That On Facts & In Law, The Learned Cit Has Grievously Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S.263 Of The Act, Without Recording A Satisfaction As To How The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. (2) That On Facts & In Law, The Proceedings U/S.263 Are Void As The Original Assessment Order Was Passed U/S.143 (3) Of The Act After Due Inquiry & Application Of Mind / & Is Not Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)(iia)

directing a fresh order under the said section].” 12. It has been interpreted so by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC). In the present case, with the ld. PCIT’s recording of satisfaction

Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, -2, Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 909/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Madhya Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Of Vs. Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan, Income-Tax-2, Race Course, Vadodara-390007 Vadodara Pan : Aadcm 7439 H अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02.02.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vadodara-2 [Herein-After Referred To As “Pcit”] Dated 27.03.2019, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “(1) That On Facts & In Law, The Learned Cit Has Grievously Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S.263 Of The Act, Without Recording A Satisfaction As To How The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. (2) That On Facts & In Law, The Proceedings U/S.263 Are Void As The Original Assessment Order Was Passed U/S.143 (3) Of The Act After Due Inquiry & Application Of Mind / & Is Not Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 43B

directing a fresh order under the said section].” 11. It has been interpreted so by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC). In the present case, with the ld. PCIT’s recording of satisfaction

Soham Buildcon (Partnership Firm), Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 105/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Ms. Madhumita Roy (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

canceling the assessment, and directing the AO to make fresh assessment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the landmark judgment in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd vs. CIT reported in [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) has analyzed the provisions of section 263 of the Act and held that

Edisons Infrapower Multiventures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax Range -6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the asssessee are allowed

ITA 1208/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleedisons Infrapower & Vs. Pr. Cit, Range – 6, Multiventures Pvt Ltd Room No.501, 18Th Floor, A-Wing, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Marathon Futurex, Nm Bhavan, M.K.Road, Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaace1633J Appellant .. Respondent Essel Corporate Vs. Pr.Cit, Range – 6, Resources Pvt Ltd Room No. 501, 18Th Floor, A-Wing, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Marathon Futurex, Nm Bhavan, M.K.Road, Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aabce0473D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Jay Bhansali.ARFor Respondent: Shri Jogendra Singh.Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)

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. ITA No. 1207 & 1208/Mum/2023 v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83, the Supreme Court held that the provision “cannot be invoked to correct each ... 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

Essel Corporate Resources Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the asssessee are allowed

ITA 1207/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleedisons Infrapower & Vs. Pr. Cit, Range – 6, Multiventures Pvt Ltd Room No.501, 18Th Floor, A-Wing, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Marathon Futurex, Nm Bhavan, M.K.Road, Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaace1633J Appellant .. Respondent Essel Corporate Vs. Pr.Cit, Range – 6, Resources Pvt Ltd Room No. 501, 18Th Floor, A-Wing, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Marathon Futurex, Nm Bhavan, M.K.Road, Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aabce0473D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Jay Bhansali.ARFor Respondent: Shri Jogendra Singh.Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)

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. ITA No. 1207 & 1208/Mum/2023 v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83, the Supreme Court held that the provision “cannot be invoked to correct each ... 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

National Udyog, Hisar vs. Pr CIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1272/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

Assessing Officer during the course of original assessment proceedings. 15. In the light of the afore-stated facts the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., 243 ITR 83, has laid down the following ratio: "A bare reading of section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, makes

Corteva Agriscience Services India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 275/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 263

therefore, no revision of order could be done in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Vs. CIT [243 ITR 83] (SC), where the twin conditions mandated under section 263 of the Act are satisfied. Page

Icici Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT -2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 738/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Visanji, advFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 263Section 36(1)Section 48

sought to be revised should be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It has been held by Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (243 ITR 83 (SC), CIT v Max India 295 ITR 282, CIT v Amitabh Bachhan ... viii) of the Act. xi. She also relied up on the decision of Honourable Supreme court in case of Malabar industrial co Ltd 243 ITR 83 to submit that where the ld AO on examination of information has not raised further query and in fact accepted it does not make

M/S.Hdb Financial Services Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 177/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80J

initiate suo motu proceeding under section 263 of the Act, the same has been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd.-Vs-CIT 243 ITR 83. However, an assessment cannot be revised if there is no jurisdictional error in the order

Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Ltd., Vadodara vs. The DCIT, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1765/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms.Madhumita Roy"नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Gujarat Energy Transmission The Pcit-I Corporation Ltd. Vadodra Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan V. Race Course Circle, Baroda. Pan : Aabcg 4029 R "नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Gujarat Energy Transmission The Deputy Corporation Ltd. Commissioner Of Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan V. Income Tax, Circle Race Course Circle, Baroda. 1(1)(1), Vadodra Pan : Aabcg 4029 R Baroda.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 263Section 40

paid were the same. 13. At this juncture, we take note of the decision in the case of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Company Limited Versus Commissioner of Income Tax 1 wherein it was held that every loss of revenue cannot be treated as prejudicial

Gujarat Energy Transmission Corpn.Ltd., Baroda vs. The CIT-1, Baroda

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1119/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms.Madhumita Roy"नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Gujarat Energy Transmission The Pcit-I Corporation Ltd. Vadodra Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan V. Race Course Circle, Baroda. Pan : Aabcg 4029 R "नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Gujarat Energy Transmission The Deputy Corporation Ltd. Commissioner Of Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan V. Income Tax, Circle Race Course Circle, Baroda. 1(1)(1), Vadodra Pan : Aabcg 4029 R Baroda.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 263Section 40

paid were the same. 13. At this juncture, we take note of the decision in the case of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Company Limited Versus Commissioner of Income Tax 1 wherein it was held that every loss of revenue cannot be treated as prejudicial

Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Gurgaon vs. PCIT, Faridabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 357/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 23Section 263Section 28

above said question is no longer res-integra and the said issue is well settled in several decisions. In the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner Page 8 of 11 of Income Tax, (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC). The Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows :- “The phrase ... debatable issue, therefore, following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) and other decisions mentioned above, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order of the Ld. PCIT is found to be erroneous, accordingly

Pawan Kumar, Fatehabad vs. Prcit, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1655/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19 Pawan Kumar Vs. Prcit, Near Aggarsain Chowk, Rohtak Prince Plywood Home, Fuwara Chowk, Fatehabad, Haryana 125050 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Surajbhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 203Section 263Section 28

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

Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA No

ITA 192/VIZ/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.192/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Administrative Office Building, Income Tax, Port Area, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam. Andhra Pradesh-530001, Pan: Aaalv 0035 C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 2(15)Section 263Section 43B

earlier years. The reliance placed by the Ld. AR in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd vs. CIT reported in [2000] 243 ITR 0083 (SC) wherein it was held that both the conditions ie., the order must be erroneous

M/S. Vysali Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ernakulam vs. The PCIT, Kochi-1, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 847/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasvysali Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The Principal Commissioner Ix/639, Edathala P.O. Of Income Tax -1 Vs. Ernakulam 683561 C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road [Pan:Aaacv 5491P] Kochi - 682018 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Narayanan P. Potty, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.01.2024 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Appeal By The Assessee Agitates The Revision Of It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 30/10/2019 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Kochi (Pr. Cit) Vide Order Under Section 263 Of The Act Dated 30.03.2022. 2. The 68-Day Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Explained By An Affidavit Dated 14.7.2023 By Shri A.D. Krishnan, Managing Director Of The Assessee-Company. We Find The Reasons Stated Therein As Genuine & Debilitative Of The Assessee’S Capacity In Filing The Appeal In Time. The Appeal Was Accordingly Admitted & The Hearing Proceeded With.

For Appellant: Shri Narayanan P. Potty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 269SSection 36(1)(va)Section 44A

being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, liable for revision, is trite law, 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), being in fact since co-opted

Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited, Thrissur vs. DCIT Circle 1(1) & Tps Thrissur, Thrissur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 628/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Daskerala State Financial Dy. Cit, Circle - 1(1) & Tps Enterprises Ltd. Thrissur Bhadratha, Museum Road Vs. Chembukkavu - 680020 Thrissur [Pan:Aabct3817A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Harikrishnanunny, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 40

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 erroneous and prejudicial to the interest

Simbhaoli Power Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT Central, Kanpur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 505/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Anshul Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Gupta, CIT- DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

1711TR 686 (Pat.) CfT Vs. United Commercial Bank (1993) 201 ITR 162 (Gal.) Jubilant Organosys Vs. CIT (2004) 2651TR 4201137 Taxman 515 (All.) . Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2000) 109 Taxman 6612431TR 83 (SC) CIT Vs. McMilon and Company (SC) 33 ITR 182 Lajjawati Singhal ... Assessing Officer has made enquiry in respect of capital gains. In the light of the afore-stated facts the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., 243 ITR 83, has laid down the following ratio: "A bare reading of section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, makes

Simbhaoli Power Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT Ghaziabad, New Delhi

ITA 4620/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Anshul Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Gupta, CIT- DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 69C

1711TR 686 (Pat.) CfT Vs. United Commercial Bank (1993) 201 ITR 162 (Gal.) Jubilant Organosys Vs. CIT (2004) 2651TR 4201137 Taxman 515 (All.) . Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2000) 109 Taxman 6612431TR 83 (SC) CIT Vs. McMilon and Company (SC) 33 ITR 182 Lajjawati Singhal ... Assessing Officer has made enquiry in respect of capital gains. In the light of the afore-stated facts the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., 243 ITR 83, has laid down the following ratio: "A bare reading of section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, makes

Malabar Industrial — 1,099 case laws | BharatTax