← 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

M/S. Pyrotech Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur vs. Pr. CIT, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3/JODH/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 44A

Leela Choudhary v/s PR. CIT 289 ITR 226(Gau.) also refer, Saw Pipes Ltd v/s Add. PR. CIT 94 TTJ 1036(Del) 17. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v/s PR. CIT 159 CTR(1)(SC), PR. CIT v/s Rayn Silk Mills 221 ITR 155(Guj.) 18. CIT v/s Paras Cotton ... 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

Atul Kumar Anchalia, Jaora vs. PCIT-1, Indore

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

ITA 63/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Dafaria, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 263

Tribunal as follows: “8. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, by relying on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83/109 Taxman.com 66, the order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi

Pioneer Insurance & Reinsurance Brokers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax - 3, Mumbai and Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax – 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 935/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Aby T Varkey (Jm)

Section 131Section 133ASection 263

circumstances of the case. The Ld PCIT also took support of the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co Ltd (2000)(243 ITR 83)(SC). It is pertinent to note that the Ld PCIT also discussed that the AO has not examined applicability ... 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

Pioneer Investcorp Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax - 3, Mumbai and Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax – 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 934/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Aby T Varkey (Jm)

Section 131Section 133ASection 263

circumstances of the case. The Ld PCIT also took support of the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co Ltd (2000)(243 ITR 83)(SC). It is pertinent to note that the Ld PCIT also discussed that the AO has not examined applicability ... 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

Pioneer Investcorp Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax - 3, Mumbai and Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax – 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 933/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Aby T Varkey (Jm)

Section 131Section 133ASection 263

circumstances of the case. The Ld PCIT also took support of the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co Ltd (2000)(243 ITR 83)(SC). It is pertinent to note that the Ld PCIT also discussed that the AO has not examined applicability ... 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

Prerak Goel, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -19, Mumbai

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

ITA 787/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2022AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)Section 263Section 53ASection 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

Mylan Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-16(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 122/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Mylan Pharmaceuticals Vs. Ito,Ward-16(3) Private Limited I.T.Towers, Ac Guards Plot No.564/A/22, Masab Tank Road No.92 Hyderabad-500 004 Jubillee Hills, Hyderabad Telangana-500 096

For Appellant: Shri P.V.S.S.Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya,CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

even those events which arose subsequent to the order of the assessment". 18. We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd., Vs. CIT |243 ITR 83] (SC) held that the phrase 'prejudicial to the interest of Revenue' has to be read in conjunction

Cavinkare Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1603/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1603/Chny/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Cavinkare Private Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of 12, Cavin Ville, Income Tax, Cenotaph Road, Teynampet Company Circle-I(3) Chennai-600 018. Chennai-600 034. Pan:Aaacb 3754B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R.Mohan Reddy, CITFor Respondent: 24.11.2022
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 35Section 36(1)(ii)

this context, it is further pertinent to keep in mind the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. vs CIT (2000), 243 ITR 83, relied on by the assessee, Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that ... this context, it is further pertinent to keep in mind the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. vs CIT (2000), 243 ITR 83, relied on by the assessee, wherein it was held that, an incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect

M/S. Croda India Company Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Pr. Comm of Income Tax, Mumbai-6

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1439/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 32Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35Section 43(6)

invoked by the ld. PCIT. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd vs CIT reported in 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT vs Max India Ltd reported in 295 ITR 282 (SC). 6.2. We deem

Hindusthan Engineering & Industries Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT, Central -1, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 201/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma] "ी राजेश कुमार लेखा सद"य एवं "ी संजय शमा" "या"यक सद"य के सम" I.T.(Ss)A. Nos. 19 To 25/Kol/2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2015-16 M/S Hindusthan Engineering & Vs. Acit, Central, Range-1, Kolkata Industries Ltd. (Pan: Aaach 8505 Q) Appellant / (अपीलाथ") Respondent / (" यथ")

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 35

versa , the jurisdiction is not available to the ld PCIT as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC).Accordingly, we quash the order passed

M/S. S vs. Constructions, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 271/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri G. Sathyanarayana, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(2)

ease of Electro House (supra) and to more so on the basis of the observations and law as declared in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) we are fully satisfied that a situation where a deduction of the present nature is allowed or in the sense deducted from ... which is not logical or rational and not acceptable and at any rate on the authority of the Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries Co. (supra) is not an acceptable submission. 23. Though learned counsel for the assessee have placed strong reliance on two judgments of the Bombay

M/S. Karnataka Hitech Agro Enterprises, Gadag vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 717/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ramaraju N., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh K., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155Section 263Section 68

What is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue is explained in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries Co Ltd v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) (head note):- "The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue' has to be read ... Revenue unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law." 12. 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 Arena Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-17

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 862/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Arena Enterprise V. Pcit –Mumbai-17 Cts No. 20, Arena Space, Village Majas Room No. 120, 1St Floor Jvlr, Behind Majas Depot Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43 Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai - 400060 G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aanfa3473E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Mrugakshi Joshi Department Represented By : Shri Jagadish Jangid

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

Court has held that both these elements 'erroneous' and 'prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue' - must be satisfied for having recourse to S.263 (Malabar Industrial Co. 243 ITR 83). 14. An order is said to be 'erroneous' when it is passed without application of mind, and where

V.Natarajan, Rasipuram vs. ACIT Central Circle, Salem

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 468/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.467/Chny/2021 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.468/Chny/2021 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri V.Natarajan Acit बनाम/ 64C, Rotary Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. Rasipuram -637 408. Salem. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acgpn-1477-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman (Ca)-Ld. Ar !थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 15-11-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 30-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ():

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

prejudicial to the revenue - recourse cannot be had to Section 263 of the Act as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. V/s CIT [243 ITR 83 10/02/2000] & noted by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s Vikas Polymers [194 Taxman 57 16/08/2010]. In terms ... held in Gabriel India Ltd.(supra). However, the expression "prejudicial to the interest of the revenue", as held by the Supreme Court in the Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. case, is not an expression of art and is not defined in the Act and, therefore, must be understood in its ordinary

V.Natarajan, Rasipuram vs. ACIT Central Circle, Salem

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 467/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.467/Chny/2021 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.468/Chny/2021 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri V.Natarajan Acit बनाम/ 64C, Rotary Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. Rasipuram -637 408. Salem. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acgpn-1477-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman (Ca)-Ld. Ar !थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 15-11-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 30-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ():

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

prejudicial to the revenue - recourse cannot be had to Section 263 of the Act as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. V/s CIT [243 ITR 83 10/02/2000] & noted by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s Vikas Polymers [194 Taxman 57 16/08/2010]. In terms ... held in Gabriel India Ltd.(supra). However, the expression "prejudicial to the interest of the revenue", as held by the Supreme Court in the Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. case, is not an expression of art and is not defined in the Act and, therefore, must be understood in its ordinary

Gold Star Diamond Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2965/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nishant Thakker &For Respondent: Hemant Kumar Chimanlal
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 40(3)

where the revenue has accepted the sales/ turnover corresponding to alleged bogus purchases. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (supra) in an unambiguous manner has held that where two views are possible and the Assessing Officer ... Nirav Modi (supra) which has been passed after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industries Company Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) wherein it has been held that in order to invoke the revisionary jurisdiction the twin conditions have to be satisfied namely

Gold Star Diamond Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2964/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nishant Thakker &For Respondent: Hemant Kumar Chimanlal
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 40(3)

where the revenue has accepted the sales/ turnover corresponding to alleged bogus purchases. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (supra) in an unambiguous manner has held that where two views are possible and the Assessing Officer ... Nirav Modi (supra) which has been passed after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industries Company Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) wherein it has been held that in order to invoke the revisionary jurisdiction the twin conditions have to be satisfied namely

M/S. Mukka Protenis Limited, Mangaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bangalore

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

ITA 433/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Nov 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 115BSection 143Section 153DSection 263Section 69C

that the impugned order is liable to be quashed accordingly. 6. In the result, appeals are allowed." 7. Sri R.K. Upadhyay had relied upon Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2000) 243 ITR 83 and Commissioner of Page 11 Income Tax Vs. Kwality Twxtile Associate

United Arab Shipping Company Ltd.(Formerly Known As United Arab Shipping Company (S.A.G)), Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)- 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2254/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2022AY 2018-2019
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234DSection 270ASection 90(2)

statute. In this regard, we may refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2000) 159 CTR 0001 (2000) 243 ITR 0083: (2000) 109 TAXMAN 0066 wherein it is observed that "The scheme

Hasu Exporters, Mumbai vs. Pr. Comm of Income Tax-17, Mumbai

In the result, it is held that the initiation of proceedings under section 263 on the issue of LTCG is bad and uncalled for

ITA 1441/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalehasu Exporters Vs. Pr. Cit-17 Room No. 39, 1St Floor Room No. 120, 1St 94, Kansara Chawl, Floor, Kautilya Kalbadevi Road, Bhavan, C-41 To 43, G Mumbai – 400002. Block, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabfh7119J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Himanshu Gandhi.Ar Respondent By : Smt.Madhumalti Ghosh.Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 14.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Pr.Cit) -17, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri. Himanshu Gandhi.ARFor Respondent: Smt.Madhumalti Ghosh.CIT DR
Section 1Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

section 263 of the Act. 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