TRICONNECT INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL) NAGPUR, NAGPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to conduct independent inquiry to establish that the assessment order was erroneous. The Assessing Officer (AO) had already examined the issue and gathered relevant evidence, and the PCIT's differing opinion did not automatically make the AO's order unsustainable.
What were the facts?
The assessee challenged an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The PCIT had held the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, primarily concerning sub-contract expenditure.
What were the issues?
Whether the PCIT correctly exercised jurisdiction under Section 263 by setting aside the assessment order without conducting independent inquiry when the AO had already examined the issue and gathered evidence.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “DB” BENCH, NAGPUR
Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY
PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:
This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 24.03.2026 of the Ld. PCIT(Central), Nagpur (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘Revisionary Authority’) in DIN & Order No: ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2025-26/1087850737(1) arising out of the assessment order dated 29.03.2024 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act,
P a g e | 2 Triconnect Infra Private Limited (AY: 2022-23) 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by ACIT/DCIT, Central- 2(2) Nagpur, for AY: 2022-23. 2. On hearing both sides we find that asse
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S A2Z Infra Engineering LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026