Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.52 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Britannia Industries Ltd, Bangalore vs Pcit-1, Kolkata on 28 March, 2022
4.4 Ld. Counsel thus, strongly contested that the impugned
revisionary proceedings have been initiated solely at the
instance of the re venue audit party as affirmed in the report of
the Ld. AO called by the Ld. Pr. CIT and thus, it is a case of
borrowed satisfaction without any independent application of
mind by the Ld. Pr. CIT in arriving at the consideration for
invoking the provisions of section 263. Accordingly, the
impugned order is ought to be quashed. Ld. Counsel placed
reliance on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT,
Mumbai in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. v. PCIT in ITA No.
1964/Mum/2019 to buttress the submissions made by him.
Relevant para 11(c) from the said decision is reproduced below:
M/S. The Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kerala ... on 10 February, 2000
The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Malabar Industries (supra) held that this phrase i.e.
"prejudicial to the interest of the revenue'' has to be read in conjunction
with an erroneous order passed by the AO. Their Lordships held that
every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of Assessing Officer
cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. When the
Assessing Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it
has resulted in loss to the revenue, or where two views are possible and
the Assessing Officer has taken one view with which the CIT does not
agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the
interest of the revenue unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is
unsustainable in law.
Section 37 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
1