← 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 Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle 3 [1], Chennai

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

ITA 353/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 353/Chny/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Tamilnadu State The Acit, Marketing Corporation Ltd., Vs. Corporate Circle 3(1), Cmda Tower, Ii, Iv Floor, Chennai. Gandhi Irwin Bridge Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. Pan: Aaact 2964P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Revision Order Passed U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-3 In Revision No.Pcit, Chennai-3/Revision-263/100000339483/2022 Dated 31.03.2022. The Assessment Was Framed By The Acit, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2014-15 U/S.143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Revision Order Passed By Pcit By Holding The Assessment Framed As Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue On Account Of Value Added Tax Paid By Assessee & Claimed As Deduction U/S.37 R.W.S. 43B Of The Act & Allowed.

For Appellant: Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 40

taken one possible view, the provisions of sec 263 will not apply as held by the Hon 'hie Supreme Court & numerous High Courts : Malabar Industrial Co Ltd v CIT 243 ITR 83 SC CIT Vs Mepco Industries Ltd 294 ITR 121 (Mad) CIT v Max India ... Income Tax does not have jurisdiction to invoke provisions Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee relies on the following decisions: Malabar Industrial Co Ltd v CIT 243 ITR 83 CITvMax India Ltd 295 ITR 28 CIT Vs Mepco Industries Ltd 294 ITR 12 In the circumstances

Sr Trust, Madurai vs. PCIT(Central), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 213/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Respondent: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan
Section 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263

after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC), held that failure on the part of the AO to apply his mind ... Ld.Counsel for the assessee referring to plethora of judicial precedents, including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., (supra) submitted that prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue u/s.263 of the Act, has to be read in conjunction with the expression

Tamilnadu Cements Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 227/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.227/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S.Tamilnadu Cements – V. The Dy. Commissioner- Corporation Ltd., Of Income Tax, 5Th Floor, Aavin Illam, Corporate Circle-3(1), No.3A, Chennai. Pasumpon Muthuramalinga- Thevar Road, Rathna Nagar, Nandanam, Chennai.

For Appellant: Mr.I. Dinesh, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

interest of the Revenue. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2001] 243 ITR 83 (SC) submitted that in order to assume jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act, twin conditions must ... appearing for the Revenue submitted that if you go by the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT, the Hon’ble Supreme Court very clearly held that if assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous

M/S Metro Development, Mumbai vs. PCIT -27, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 635/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2017-18
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

PCIT. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd reported in 243 ITR 83 ; decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nirav Modi reported

Infiniti Retail Ltd, Mumbai vs. Chief CIT (OSD) (I/C. Pr. CIT - 2 ), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3685/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)

this connection, we would like to draw your kind attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [243 ITR 83) wherein certain important principles relating to jurisdiction under Section 263 have been laid down. The following observations made ... laid down principles of law in this regard. Thus, applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) and the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case of the assessee company, it is clear that the proceedings under

Janata Traders, Gadag vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

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

ITA 401/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Girija, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

losing tax lawfully payable by a person, it will certainly be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. As held in the case of Malabar Industries Co. Ltd., Vs. CIT (243 ITR 83) (SC), the Commissioner can exercise revision jurisdictional u/s Janata Traders, Gadag Page ... Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT (67 ITR 84) (SC), Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT (88 ITR 323) (SC), and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd's case ( 243 ITR 83) (SC). 6.4 In Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. case the Hon'ble Court has held as under: “There

Bhaskar Arvind Kumar Hingad, Mumbai vs. Asstt CIT-24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 692/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.692/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) Bhaskar Arvind Kumar बिधम/ Acit-24(1) Hingad 601, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Flat No. 1, Ratnakar Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Building, 26 Narayan Mumbai-400012. Dhabolkar Road, Mumbai- 400006. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacph2812F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-20 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 31.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2014- 15 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

that, let us take the guidance of judicial precedence laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (243 ITR 83) wherein their Lordships have held that twin conditions should be satisfied before jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act is exercised ... examined one has to understand what is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd (supra) held that this phrase i.e. "prejudicial to the interest of the revenue'' has to be read in conjunction with an "erroneous" order

Pgs Premiere Conferencing Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Bangalore

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

ITA 622/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

such assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra).” 8. The above view of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court was also followed by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal

Biswajit Bose, New Panvel vs. Pr CIT -1, Thane

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and order of Ld

ITA 1322/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shree Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalbiswajit Bose B103, Balaji Niwas, Plot No-107-108, Sector-8, New Panvel, Panvel-410206 Pan No. Acxpb9332K ....Appellant Pr Cit-1 Thane Room No-7, 6The Floor, B Wing, Ashar It Park, Wagale Industrial Estate, Thane West, Mumbai-400604 ...Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Sharma & S.SriramFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(47)Section 263

vest the Commissioner with the power of suo motu revision because the first requirement, viz., that the order is erroneous, is absent 15. In Malabar Industrial Co Ltd v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC), the Supreme Court held that there must be two conditions namely that the order

Pochiraju Industries Limited, Hosur vs. ACIT Circle 1, Hosur

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

ITA 1719/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1719/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri. T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri. S. Palani Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(i)

assessment order and this legal principle is supported by plethora of jurisdictional precedence including the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. vs CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC). In the light of above legal position, if you examine the facts of the case

Globalworth Securities Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 620/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Globalworth Securities Limited, Acit, Circle-4(1)(1), 716, Neelkanth Corporate Park, Room No. 640, 6Th Floor, Kirol Road, Vidyavihar (West), Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Mumbai-400086. Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadcg 7624 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Aditya Ramachndran, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ashok Kumar Kardam, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/10/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Aditya Ramachndran, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar Kardam, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 148(2)

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of regard, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Limited v. CIT (2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) may be Industrial Co. Limited v. CIT (2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) may be Industrial

Trivitron Health Care Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1340/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1340/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 V. M/S.Trivitron Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner- “Sapthagiri Bhavan”, Of Income Tax, New No.15, Old No.25, Corporate Circle-3(1), Trivitron Sapthagiri Bhawan, Chennai. 4Th Street, Abhiramapuram, Chennai. [Pan: Aaact 9378 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Mr.M.Rajan, CIT
Section 119Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

well settled principle of law by decisions of various Courts, including decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co.Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC), where it has been clearly held that the PCIT cannot assume jurisdiction to revise assessment order, unless the PCIT satisfies

Ashokkumar Bhanwarlal Chhajer, Sanpada vs. Pr. CIT - (Central), Pune

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

ITA 1361/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2017-18
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

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

L & T Infra Debt Fund Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 809/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2016-17
Section 10(47)Section 148Section 148ASection 263

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. Karnataka State Beverages Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore - 4, Bangalore

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

ITA 397/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2015-16
For Respondent: Shri Narendra Sharma
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

supported the order passed by the Ld.PCIT. 5.2 The Ld.DR also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 243 ITR 83. Further it was pointed out that, in the notes on account no. 22, the said ... account. The Ld.AO did not conduct enquiry based on the return filed in lieu of the notices issued post search action. 6.1. In Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 243 ITR 83, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the revision jurisdiction under section

Nepal Singh Rathod (HUF), Hubli vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

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

ITA 400/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

losing tax lawfully payable by a person, it will certainly be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. As held in the case of Malabar Industries Co. Ltd., Vs. CIT (243 ITR 83) (SC), the Commissioner can exercise revision jurisdictional u/s 263 if he is satisfied that the order ... Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT (67 ITR 84) (SC), Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT (88 ITR 323) (SC), and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd's case ( 243 ITR 83) (SC). 7.4 In Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. case the Hon'ble Court has held as under: Nepal Singh

Sasanur Hospital, Vijaypur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee as well as the appeal of revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 415/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Mandur, C.A by RevenueFor Respondent: Shri Vilas Shinde, CIT (DR) by
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

submissions in this regard. Accordingly, he decided the matter on the basis of materials available on record. He relied on the following judgments. 1. Malabar Industrial Co., Ltd [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) 2. Daniel Merchants P. Ltd. 2017- TIOL-455-SC-IT 3. Rajmandir Estates

Shri. Umedmal Sonmal Mutha, Gadag vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubballi

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee as well as the appeal of revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 385/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Preethi Patel, Advocate by RevenueFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR) by
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263

ITAT Cochin Bench has explained the provisions of sec. 263 of the Act. Further, the ld.Pr.CIT also relied on the following judgments. 1. Malabar Industrial Co., Ltd [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) 2. Daniel Merchants P. Ltd. 2017- TIOL-455-SC-IT 3. Rajmandir Estates P Ltd. (2017) 245 Taxman

Sericulturists Cum Farmers Service Co-Operative Society Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 425/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Sericulturists Cum Farmers Service Co-Operative Society Ltd., The Principal 01Sfcs Building, Commissioner Of Near Bus Stop, Income Tax – 2, Sarjapura Town, Bengaluru. Vs. Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru – 562 125. Pan: Aaaas6468H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Ranjan, Ca Revenue By : Shri Praveen Karanth, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/03/2022 Passed By Ld.Pr.Cit-2, Bangalore U/S. 263 Of The Act Relating To A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. Tax Effect Relating To Grounds Of Appeal Each Ground Of Appeal The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bengaluru-2 ("Pr. Cit") Dated 30-Mar-2022, Passed Under I. Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ("The Act") N.A Insofar It Is Against The Appellant, Is Opposed To The Law, Weight Of Evidence, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Ranjan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57Section 68Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue in terms of section 263. 19. This view is supported by the following judicial decisions: 1. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) 2. Daniel Merchants P. Ltd. 2017- TIOL-455-SC-IT 3. Sreelekha Banerjee

M/S Southern Tpetrochemical Industries Corpration Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 232/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.232/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S.Southern Petrochemical V. The Income Tax Officer, Industries Corporation Ltd., Corporate Ward-3(1), 88, Spic House, Mount Road, Chennai. Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan:Aaacs 4668 K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. &
Section 115JSection 143Section 263

assessing officer has taken one of the two possible views it cannot be termed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. [Malabar Industrial Co. (vs) CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC)] 3. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax ought to have held that the amount investment in subsidiary ... PCIT cannot substitute his opinion on the same set of facts. 14. It is relevant to consider the Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (Reported in 243 ITR 83) where it was held as under: A bare reading of this provision makes it clear