BAKERI PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was unsustainable. The assessment order was not erroneous as the AO had conducted detailed inquiries and allowed set-off only to the eligible extent, and the PCIT's premise was factually incorrect.
What were the facts?
The assessee company, engaged in real estate, filed its return for AY 2020-21 declaring NIL income after setting off unabsorbed depreciation. The PCIT initiated revision proceedings under Section 263, alleging the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue due to incorrect set-off of brought forward depreciation.
What were the issues?
Whether the PCIT correctly invoked Section 263 powers when the assessment order was based on detailed inquiry and the PCIT's premise was factually flawed, and whether the AO's actions constituted an 'erroneous' order prejudicial to revenue.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 263,Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 142(1),Section 154
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT2,943 citing243 ITR 83 · 2000 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Max India Ltd.1,162 citing295 ITR 282 · 2007 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: S/SHRI SANJAY GARG & MAKARAND V.MAHADEOKAR
आदेश आदेश आदेश
PER MAKARAND V.MAHADEOKAR, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the revisionary order dated 26.03.2025 passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as "Ld. PCIT"], for the Assessment Year 2020–21, whereby the assessment order passed under section ITA No.954 /Ahd/2025
143(3) r.w.s. 144B dated 27.
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 →- Prabhudatta Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs. Joint Commissioner Of GST (Appeal), Territorial Range, BolangirOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Attitude Exim PVT. LTD., Rourkela vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Pradeep Kumar Mahapatra, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent Bhubaneswar-Iii Circle, CGST Range, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026