“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

M/S Torrent Roofing System, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4, Hoshiarpur

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical

ITA 84/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143Section 263Section 40(1)(ia)

Officer. Hence, the order of the Assessing Officer was clearly erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 5.1 Hence, both the limbs of Malabar Industrial Co. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (S.C.) are satisfied. Hence, the Assessing Officer is justified in making addition on the basis of judgment ... noted that the CIT(A) has merely stated in its judgment that hence, both the limbs of Malabar Industrial Co. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (S.C.) are satisfied. Hence, the Assessing Officer is justified in making addition on the basis of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

Kaur Kookies (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT, Delhi-4, New Delhi

Appeal are allowed

ITA 1119/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 263Section 36

Assessing Officer cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (supra). Since the order of the Assessing Officer cannot be held to be erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest ... India Ltd. the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above case applied the ratio in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT reported in 243 ITR 83 wherein it has been held as under: "A bare reading of this provision makes it clear that the prerequisite to exercise

Jubilant Pharmova Limited (Erstwhile Jubilant Life Sciences Limited), Gajraula vs. Pr. CIT Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1071/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. N.K Choudhryjubilant Pharmova Limited Vs. The Pr. Cit, (Erstwhile Jubilant Life Bareilly, Sciences Limited) Uttar Pradesh 244 001 Bhartiagram, Gajraula Jyotiba Phoolay Nagar, Amroha, Up – 244 223 Pan No. Aabcv 0200 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri K.M Gupta, Adv. Ms. Shruti Khimta, Ar Revenue By Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.05.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.03.2022 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Bareilly Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under :- Jubilant Pharmova Limited Vs. Pcit 2 3. The Assessee Is A Company Stated To Be Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Sale Of Chemicals, Chemical Intermediates, Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients & Generation Of Power. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y 2016-17 On 28.11.2016 Declaring Total Of Income At Rs. 54,63,38,840/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & Thereafter Assessment Was Framed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) Vide Order Dated 17.02.2020 & The Total Income Was Determined At Rs. 95,52,38,865/-.

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

virtue of being erroneous, and prejudice has been caused to the interests of the Revenue. 13. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co., Ltd., Vs CIT reported in (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) has held that PCIT has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely ... further, would according to us fall in the category of non inquiry. We find that Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industries Co. (supra) has held that “an incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous

Arvi Lights, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 47(5), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 578/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Arvi Lights, Vs Ito, 1783/1, Kundan Mansion, Ward 47(5), Bhagirath Place, Delhi. Chandni Chowk, Delhi – 110 006. Pan: Abbfa8083H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Raghunath, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.578/Del/2022 For Ay 2017-18 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi-10 [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Pcit’, In Short] In Din & Order No.Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021-22/1039802410(1) Dated 16.02.2022 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 31.05.2019 By The Ld. Assessing Officer, Ward 47(5), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’). 2. The Only Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is That Whether The Ld.Pcit Was Justified In Assumption Of Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act, In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Raghunath, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

very well settled on this issue by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., reported in 243 ITR 83 and CIT vs. Max India Ltd., reported in 166 Taxman 188. Hence, we have no hesitation in quashing the revision order passed

Bimla Devi, Panipat vs. ITO, Panipat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 914/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Bimla Devi, Vs Ito, H.No.398/12, Parav Mohalla, Ward 1, Samalkha, Panipat, Panipat, Haryana – 124 001. Haryana – 132101. Pan: Aalca0777A

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kaushik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Raghunath, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

very well settled on this issue by the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co Ltd reported in 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT vs Max India Ltd reported in 166 taxman 188 (SC) . Hence we hold that the ld. PCIT had grossly erred

Vivek Agnihotri, Mumbai vs. ITO 16 (1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 4493/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadalevivek Agnihotri Vs. Ito – 16(1)(5), 1505/1506, Amarnath Aayakar Bhavan, Tower, Yari Road, M.K.Road, Versova, Andheri (W) Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400061. Pan/Gir No. : Adypa6052B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Kinjal Bhuta.Ar Respondent By : Mr. Ankush Kapoor.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 01.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Prcommissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-16, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Ms.Kinjal Bhuta.ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ankush Kapoor.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 50C

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

Shri Sham Sunder Aggarwal, Kapurthala vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

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

ITA 17/ASR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263Section 263o

erroneous, is not prejudicial to interest of revenue, twin conditions essentially required as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co.Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83(SC). If given resort to, it would simply push the assessee into third round of proceedings, with seamless

Sprint Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT- 3 Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 1411/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 68

taking into account the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co Ltd (243 ITR 80). The relevant observations made by Hon’ble Bombay High Court are extracted below: “Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 empowers the Commissioner to call ... 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

Shri Jankilal, Ujjain vs. PCIT-1, Indore

ITA 175/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jankilal Pr.Cit-1 बनाम/ 12, Chimanganj Mandi Indore Agar Road, Ujjain Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aczpj 2632 A Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 08.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2023

Section 143(3)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 263Section 40Section 80I

view and therefore also the order can’t be said to be erroneous in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC). 12. Finally, Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court ... Jankilal ITA No.175/Ind /2022 Assessment year 2017-18 be erroneous in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC). 15. In view of above discussion and for the reasons stated therein, we are persuaded to hold that

Kanaiya Readymade Stores, Surat vs. Pr. CIT-1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 61/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.61/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Kanaiya Readymade Stores, The Pcit-1, Surat. Vs. 3/199-200, Main Bazar, Opp. Laliya Lake, Olpad, Surat – 394540. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfk1700E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2023

Section 143(3)Section 263

prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, he may pass an order u/s 263. Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) has held that if the order is erroneous but it is not prejudicial to the interests ... case of Ranka Jewellers vs. Addl. CIT (328 ITR 148) relying on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) and CIT ITA No.61/SRT/2022/AY.2017-18 Kanaiya Readymade Stores vs. Max India Ltd. [(2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC)], has held that once

Kanubhai Vanmalibhai Patel HUF, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 60/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Kanubhai Vanmalibhai Patel I.T.O.,Ward 1(2)(1), Huf,6, Siddharth Society, Surat. Vs. Behind Afil Tower, Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat-395010. Pan: Aakhp 0725 K Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 54B

written synopsis, which was taken on record. To support his various submissions, the ld AR for the assessee relied on the following case laws;  Malabar Industrial Company Private Limited (2000) 243 ITR 83-SC,  Shreeji Prints (2021) 130 taxmann.com 293 (Gujarat),  CIT Vs Sidharth J Desai ... treated indifferently. Thus, on such principle the assessment order cannot be branded as erroneous. 18. The Supreme Court in a celebrated case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 832 (SC), held that the prerequisite for the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner suo-motu is that

Balubhai Brijbhukhandas Choksi, Na vs. Arivs.Principal Commissioner of Income Taxvalsad, Valsad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 119/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.119/Srt/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Balubhai Brijbhukhandas Principal Commissioner Of Income- Tax-Valsad, Room No. 301, 3Rd Floor, Choksi, Mota Bazar, Vs. Navsari-396445 Income Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Pali Hill, Santinagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-396001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifb 9804 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Hiren M. Diwan, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By: Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-D.R

For Appellant: Shri Hiren M. Diwan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ravinder Sindhu, CIT-D.R

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 199CSection 263

present case, we may refer the scope of provisions of section 263 of Income tax Act. The Supreme Court in case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 832 (SC), held that the prerequisite for the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner suo-motu is that ... amount of Rs.12,50,000/- in the PMGKY,2016, and allowed the claim of assessee. 18. We note that Hon’ble Apex Court in Malabar Industries Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83(SC) wherein their Lordship have held that twin conditions needs to be satisfied before exercising revisional jurisdiction

Smt. Nayanaben F. Patel, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat-1, Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed,

ITA 102/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Smt. Nayanaben F. Patel, Pr.C.I.T. 1, Indraprashtha Society, Surat-1, Vs. Nr. Puna Patiya, Magob, Surat. Surat-395010. Pan: Bhrpp 4706 K Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 54BSection 54F

purchasing another agricultural land the assessee is entitled to claim exemption under section 54B of the Act. 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Limited Vs CIT [2000] 109 Taxman 66/243 ITR 83 held that twin conditions is to be satisfied before exercising jurisdiction under section

Mahaveer Prasad Jain, Jaipur vs. Principal CIT-2, New Central Revenue Building

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Khandelwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Avadesh Kumar (CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

unwarranted. To support this view 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 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

Dharmendra Mehta, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 201/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Avadhesh Kumar (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 44A

erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in terms of judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Limited V/S CIT2431TR wherein it has been held as under- "An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement ... erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in terms of judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Limited vs CIT 243 ITR wherein it has been held as under: ………………..” From the perusal of the above, it is evident that the ld. PCIT

Agroh Infrastructure Developers P Ltd, Mhow vs. Pr CIT Central Circle Bhopal, Bhopal

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 95/IND/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Agroh Infrastructure Pr. Cit (Central) Developers Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal Aqua Point, A.B.Road, Vs. Umaria, Mhow, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaeca 2752 L Assessee By Shri Manish Mittal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.04.2023

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

Data P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [(2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC)] to say that even agreed basis orders can be revisited and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Page 14 of 16 Agroh Infrstructure Developers P. Ltd. Page ... mind. MAK Data Systems case deals with penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of IT Act which operates in a different realm and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., does not rescue the Revenue as impugned notice is hit by the vice of lack of jurisdiction on account of being time barred

Arun Kumar Palawat, Jaipur vs. Pr CIT, Jaipur-1, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 144/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Bhatra (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT D/R

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Leela Choudhary v/s PR. CIT 289 ITR 226(Gau.) also refer, Saw Pipes Ltd v/s Add. PR. CIT 94 TTJ 1036(Del) Also refer Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v/s PR. CIT 159 CTR(1)(SC), PR. CIT v/s Rayn Silk Mills 221 ITR 155(Guj.) 16 Shri Arun Kumar Palawat ... permissible in law, he cannot be faulted- which is a sine qua non for invoking the powers under section 263. In the case of Malabar Industrial Co Ltd Vs CIT [(2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC)], Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “Every loss of revenue as a consequence

DCIT, Corporate Circle- 1(1), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd., Bhubaneswar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 359/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita Nos.34 & 35/Ctk/2019 2019 Assessment Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014 14 & 2014-15 M/S. Grid Corporation Of M/S. Grid Corporation Of Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle -1(1), Orissa Ltd., Gridco House, Orissa Ltd., Gridco House, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Janpath, Bhubaneswar Janpath, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcg 5398 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain & Shri Venugopal Rao, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

permissible in law, he cannot be faulted- which is a sine qua non for invoking the powers under section 263. In the case of Malabar Industrial Co Ltd Vs CIT [(2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC)], Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “Every loss of revenue as a consequence

DCIT, Corporate Circle- 1(1), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd., Bhubaneswar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 358/CTK/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain & Shri Venugopal Rao, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

M/S. Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubanswar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 35/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain & Shri Venugopal Rao, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40