APRAAVA RENEWABLE ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PR.CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal held that the PCIT's orders under Section 263 were unsustainable. It found that the PCIT failed to identify any specific error in the AO's orders and merely remanded the issues for verification, which is beyond the scope of revisionary powers as the twin conditions for exercising Section 263 (error causing prejudice) were not met.
What were the facts?
The PCIT initiated revisionary proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Years 2020-21 and 2021-22, asserting that the assessment orders were erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. This was based on alleged excess depreciation claims by the assessee, not properly enquired into by the AO, and an incorrect allowance of deduction under Section 43B.
What were the issues?
Whether the PCIT validly exercised revisionary powers under Section 263 when merely remitting issues for verification without establishing a specific error causing prejudice to the revenue, concerning depreciation claims and Section 43B disallowances.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA
PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM: Both appeals relate to the same assessee and are against separate orders passed by the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, PCIT, Ahmedabad-1 (in short “PCIT”), dated 06.03.2025 & 08.03.2025 passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relate to Assessment Years (A.Ys.) 2020-21 & 2021-22 respectively.
ITA Nos. 693 & 694/Ahd/2025 [Apraava Renewable Energy Private Limited vs. PCIT] A.Ys. 2020-21
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 →- M/S. Middlex, Puri vs. Commnr. Of State Tax, Banijyakar Bhawan, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Sunadei Indane Gramin Vitrak, Nayagarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Sunanda Raul vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods Nad Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Zakir Hussain Ali Khan vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals), BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Manorama Nayak, Khorda vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar Iv Circle, KhurdaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026