“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

Gonikoppal Primary Rural Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Kodagu vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-3, Bengaluru

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1072/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(i)

cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment. This provision was the subject matter of interpretation by the Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83/109 Taxman 66 (SC), where the Supreme Court has held as under:- "A bare reading of this ... only erroneous but is also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The fulfilment of both the conditions is an essential prerequisite. [See Malabar Industrial M/s. Bhavana Co op Credit Society Niyamitha, Sirsi Page 19 of 31 Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC)]. An order is erroneous

Unicure India Limited, Delhi vs. Pr, CIT 3 Central Delhi, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3540/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Section 153CSection 263

direction in very terms as the assessment herein not adding the above sum could not be termed as an erroneous one in light of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC). Ordered accordingly. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court

International Flavours & Fragrances India Private Limited, Chennai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

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

ITA 268/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwalla, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N., C.I.T

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 801B

that the aforesaid principle has been reinforced in the following judicial precedents: The judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd in 243 ITR 83 (2000). [Para 6 to 10 Page no. 04 of Case law Paper Book] and Judgement ... adopted one of the possible views after examining the assessee's documents and material on record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. and Max India Ltd. has settled that when two views are possible and the AO has taken one, the order cannot be revised merely

Be Healthy Pharmacy, Mumbai vs. DCIT 41(3)(1), Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai

ITA 3666/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Be Healthy Pharmacy Pcit-41 Shop No. 04, Gala Residency Room No. 541 Chsl, Gala Compound, Haji Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc Bapu Road, Malad East C-41 To 43 Mumbai-400 097. Bandra-E, Mumbai-51. Pan : Aatfb6476A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Satyaparkash R. SinghFor Respondent: Shri Ronak Doshi

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 194CSection 194HSection 263

Brief Synopsis with more than 15 cases-law. Some of the cases-law filed and relied on by appellant are analysed below :- a) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 109 Taxman 66 (SC), where it was held as follows : “10. In the instant case, the Commissioner noted that

Mawasi, Haryana vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5020/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, CIT-DR

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

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

Kantaben Vajubhai Paghadal, Rajkot, Gujarat vs. ITO WD 1(2)(1), Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 552/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.552/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Kantaben Vajubhai Paghadal Vs. It-Office, New Aayakar At- Charan Samadhiyala, Bhawan, Jetpur – 360370(Gujarat) Rajkot - 360370 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Cxmpp2962D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 145BSection 250Section 56

case of Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai (supra). Therefore, we note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down law through judgment in case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83, wherein it was held as under: "When an Income Tax Officer adopted one of the courses

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Lucknow vs. M/S. U.P. State Construction & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, Lucknow

ITA 617/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 251Section 263

does not operate in isolation. It does not dispense with the twin jurisdictional conditions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [(2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC)]- i.e., the order must be: (a) Erroneous, and (b) Prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue

U.P Samaj Kalyan Nirman Nigam Limited (Now Known As U.P State Construction and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.), Lucknow vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Lucknow

ITA 67/LKW/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 251Section 263

does not operate in isolation. It does not dispense with the twin jurisdictional conditions laid down by the Hon'ble 13 Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [(2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC)]- i.e., the order must be: (a) Erroneous, and (b) Prejudicial to the interests

Bhargab Engineering Works, Howrah vs. PCIT, Central Kolkata 2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1161/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

CCIT reported in 99 ITR 375, 386 (Delhi High Court), Thalibal F. Jain v. ITO reported in 101 ITR 1, 6, (Karnakata High Court), Malabar Industrial Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT reported in (2000) 243 ITR 83, 87-88 (Supreme Court), Rampyari Devi Saraogi

Raj Singh, Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6710/DEL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2Section 263Section 28Section 3

Rajpal, Jhajjar vs. Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Unit

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6697/DEL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 3Section 56(2)(viii)

Tara Vati, Gurgaon, Haryana vs. Circle 3(1) Gurgaon, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6552/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

Microsoft Corporation (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2933/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

prejudicial to the revenue, action cannot be taken u/s 263 of the Act as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. reported in 243 ITR 83(SC) and followed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Vikas Polymers reported ... Taxman 57(Delhi). 20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) has held that the phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue' must be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence

Asit C Mehta Investment Interrmediates Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 3411/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Asit C. Mehta Investment Pr.Cit Interrmediates Limited Room No. Ab-629 Nucleus House, Saki Vihar Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Road, Mumbai-400 072. M.K. Road,Mumbai-20 Pan : Aaaca5009N Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Yogesh Thar & Shri

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 37(1)

valid. Moreover, no enquiries were caused by Ld. AO relating to “Business Associate Expenses” and in the case of Malabar Industrial Co., the Hon'ble Supreme Court has adjudicated that non-conducting enquiries amounts to “error” and Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the order of Ld. PCIT under section

Charanjeet Singh, Panipat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Panipat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6387/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2018-19 Sh. Charanjeet Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, H. No. 115, Baholi, Ward-1, Panipat Refinery, Panipat Panipat, Haryana Pan: Ddaps7473H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Suresh Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

Lucknow Educational and Social Welfare Society, Lucknow vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 314/LKW/2025[2020-21]Status: FixedITAT Lucknow20 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Shri Brahma Prakash Singh, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 94, Vaishali Enclave, Sector-9, Indira Income Tax-2, Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow Pan: Ajmps4451L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Dharmendra Kumar, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit-2, Lucknow Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act On 14.03.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. That Revision Proceeding Initiated U/S 263 Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 By Learned Pr. Cit-2. Lucknow Is Illegal & Without Jurisdiction. 2. That Since Assessment Order Passed By The Ao Was Not Erroneous In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Revenue, Hence Revision Order Passed By Ld. Pr. Cit-2, Lucknow Is Illegal & Without Jurisdiction. 3. That Ld.Ao Had Examined The Issue & After Being Satisfied By The Documentary Evidences & Explanations Furnished By Appellant, Passed Assessment Order, Hence Revision Order, Cancelling The Assessment Order Is Illegal & Without Jurisdiction. 4. That Where An Order Passed By Ao Is Subject To An Appeal That Had Been Filed, Then Commissioner Cannot Invoke Power Under Section 263 In Such Matters, Which Are Agitated In Such Appeal. Since Issue Under Appeal Before Commissioner (Appeals) & Revision Order Passed Under Section 263 Is Same, Hence, Revision Order Passed By Commissioner Is Illegal & Without Jurisdiction. 5. That The Appellant Seeks Permission To Modify And/Or Add Any Other Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal As The Circumstances Of The Case Might Require Or Justify.”

For Appellant: Sh. Dharmendra Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 263

Income-tax, Kolkata- III. [2016] 70 taxmann.com 124 (Calcutta) 3. Surya Financial Services Ltd vs Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax (ITAT Delhi) [2018] 4. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC).” 7. We have duly considered the facts and circumstances of the case

Star Paper Mills Limited, Kolkata vs. PCIT - 2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 641/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)

Mills Limited jurisdiction u/s 263 is not available. In support, he relied on decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co Ltd (243 ITR 83). The AR submitted that , the assessee had debited provision for bad debts & doubtful advances aggregating to Rs.25.01 lacs ... interests of the Revenue. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (Supra) wherein it has been held that the twin satisfaction of conditions as provided u/s. 263 of the Act is mandatory and even

Vision & Vision Private Limited, Jamshedpur vs. Acut/ DCIT Circle 1, Jamshedpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 183/RAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.183/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vision & Vision Pvt. Ltd.…….……………............................……….……Appellant Block No.2, Ambika Tower, Main Road Shastri Nagar, Jamshedpur – 831005. [Pan: Aabcv5072B] Vs. Acit/Dcit, Circle-1, Jamshedpur ..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 12, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 19, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pcit), Ranchi, Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Dated 31.03.2025 For A.Y. 2018–19. The Assessee Challenges The Legality & Validity Of The Assumption Of Jurisdiction By The Pcit & The Consequent Revision Of The Reassessment Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Dated 27.03.2023. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For A.Y. 2018–19 Declaring Total Income Of ₹11,95,030. The Return Was Initially Processed U/S 143(1). Later, Based On Information Shared By The Ddit (Investigation), Kolkata, It Was Alleged That The Assessee Had Received An Accommodation Entry Of ₹1,18,61,425 From M/S Kuldeepak Enterprises During The Year. On This Basis, The Ao Reopened The

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263

mind and taken one of the possible views, revision is not permissible as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court as in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sunbeam Auto ... documentary evidence placed on record. Thus, the AO’s conclusion is a plausible view. The Hon'ble Supreme Court as in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (243 ITR 83) held that where the AO adopts one of the possible views, the order cannot be revised merely because

Ganga Bishan, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2179/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

Ghanshyam Lal, Bilaspur vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 241/RPR/2025[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Raipur14 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R.K Panda & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.241/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Ghanshyam Lal Ward No.06, Chhatauna Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 222 Pan: Ajupl0084A ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Manisha Kinnu, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 234ASection 263Section 405(1)Section 68

interest of the revenue. In the aforesaid judgment, on perusal of the assessment order and relying on the judgment passed in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the order passed