How many judgments cite CIT v. Greenworld Corporation?

197 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Greenworld Corporation (314 ITR 81), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Greenworld Corporation come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(2).

CIT v. Greenworld Corporation

314 ITR 81Supreme Court of India2009#472 most cited

What is CIT v. Greenworld Corporation authority for?

The Commissioner can revise an assessment order under Section 263 only if the Assessing Officer's order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Assessing Officer must have applied their mind and taken a possible view for the revision to be invalid.

197

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Greenworld Corporation · Section 263 · erroneous assessment · prejudicial to revenue · commissioner revision powers · adequate enquiry · possible view · judicial function · appellate jurisdiction · conditions for revision

Also reported as

181 Taxmann 111

Sections most often in play

Section 263 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 147 Section 148 Section 143(2)Section 68 Section 115BBE

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

inadequate enquiry revision u/s 263 malabar industrial lack of enquiry section 263(1)revision under section 263 assessment order erroneous section 120 section 144a erroneous and prejudicial section 119 section 263

Judgments citing CIT v. Greenworld Corporation

Swach Enviroment Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-4, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 983/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 263

…t the exercise of jurisdiction and consequent order passed u/s 263 may kindly be quashed. In defense of his argument the Ld. A.R relied on the various decisions: i) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT in 243 ITR 83 (SC) ii) CIT vs. Greenworld Corporation in 314 ITR 81 (SC) iii) CIT vs. Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank (Cal-HC) iv) Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank vs. CIT (Kol-Trib) in ITA No. 877/Kol/2015 v) Luxmi Township & Holding Ltd. (Kol-Trib) in ITA No. 468 /Kol/2019 5. The Ld. D.R relied heavily on the order of PCIT by submitting that no prejudice is going to be caused to the assessee by way of revising the asse…

Arun Kumar Palawat, Jaipur vs. Pr CIT, Jaipur-1, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 144/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Bhatra (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT D/R

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…n), CIT Vs. Godawari Sugar Mills Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) and CIT Vs. Shakti Charities (2000) 160 CTR 107 (Mad.). The facts and submissions are verifiable from the assessment record. The Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Green World Corporation (2009) 314 ITR 81 (Supreme Court) held that ‘The jurisdiction under section 263 can be exercised only when both the following conditions are satisfied (i) the order of the assessing officer should be erroneous and (ii) it should be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. These conditions are conjunctive. An order of assessment passed by the Assessing officer…

Nisarg Associates, Mumbai vs. PCIT Mumbai-20, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 755/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blenisarg Associates V. Ld. Pr.Cit – Mumbai – 20 Room No. 418, Piramal Chambers 1304, Ashok Heights, Near Nicco Circle Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 Nikolas Wadi Road, Gundavalli Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400069 Pan: Aahfn4619F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By Shri Ronak G. Doshi & : Shri Chaitanya D. Joshi Department Represented By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Nisarg Associates V. Ld. Pr.CIT – Mumbai – 20 Room No. 418, Piramal Chambers 1304, Ashok Heights, Near NICCO Circle Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 Nikolas Wadi Road, Gundavalli Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400069 PAN: AAHFN4619F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by Shri Ronak G. Doshi and : Shri Chaitanya D. Joshi Department Represented by : Dr. Mahesh Akhade Date of Hearing : 17.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 05.01.2023 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR R…

Aadi Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle CIT -14, Mumbai

In the result, we set aside the order of the CIT dated

ITA 1675/MUM/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Aadi Industries Limited V. Pr.Cit – 14 421, 4Th Floor Room No. 426, 4Th Floor Kailash Plaza, Vallabh Baug Lane Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Near R-Odeon Mall, Ghatkopar(E) Mumbai - 400075 Pan: Aaacj8256G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Mandar Vaidya Department Represented By : Shri Jagadish Jangid

Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Aadi Industries Limited v. Pr.CIT – 14 421, 4th Floor Room No. 426, 4th Floor Kailash Plaza, Vallabh Baug Lane Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Near R-Odeon Mall, Ghatkopar(E) Mumbai - 400075 PAN: AAACJ8256G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Mandar Vaidya Department Represented by : Shri Jagadish Jangid Date of Hearing : 05.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 24.11.2022 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is…

Infiniti Retail Ltd, Mumbai vs. Chief CIT (OSD) (I/C. Pr. CIT - 2 ), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3685/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Infiniti Retail Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Unit No.701 & 702, 7th Floor Income Tax-2(2)(1) Room No.545, 5th Floor Kaledonia, Sahar Road Andheri (E) Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400 069 M.K.Road, Mumbai -400020 PAN/GIR No.AACCV1726H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Nitesh Joshi Revenue by Shri K.C.Selvamani Date of Hearing 17/10/2022 Date of Pronouncement 31/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.3685/Mum/2019 for A.Y.2013…

Avirahi Realty, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 185/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh M. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice President And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2017-18 Avirahi Realty, Pr. CIT-3, 16, 1st Floor, Ahmedabad Dholera RAHA, Vs (Respondent) Dholera, Ahmedabad-382455 PAN: AAXFA1899C (Appellant) Assessee by: Shri Hitesh M. Shah, A.R. Revenue by: Shri James Kurian, CIT-D.R. Date of hearing : 27-07-2022 Date of pronouncement : 14-10-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (…

Aculife Healthcare Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 305/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Hemanshu C. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT-D.R

Section 263

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice President And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member ITA Nos. 304 & 305/Ahd/2020 Assessment Year 2015-16 & 2016-17 Aculife Healthcare Pvt. DCIT, Ltd. B-505, Commerce Circle 1(1)(1), House-5 Prahladnagar Vs Ahmedabad Corporate S.G. High Way, (Respondent) Ahmedabad-380051 PAN: AAMCA8542G (Appellant) Assessee by: Shri Hemanshu C. Shah, A.R. & Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. A.R. Revenue by: Shri James Kurian, CIT-D.R. Date of hearing : 26-07-2022 Date of pronouncement : 14-10-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDIC…

Aculife Healthcare Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 304/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Hemanshu C. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT-D.R

Section 263

Hindustan Sales Industrial Corporation, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 94/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…rustees Anupam Charitable Trust (1987) 167 ITR 129 (Raj.), CIT vs. Godawari Sugar Mills Ltd. (1993), 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) and CIT vs. Shakti Charities (2000) 160 CTR 107 (Mad.). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Green World Corporation (2009) 314 ITR 81 held that the jurisdiction u/s 263 can be exercised only when both the conditions are satisfied. First order of the AO should be erroneous and second it should be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. These two conditions are conjunctive. Further it is also noteworthy that once the AO has taken a plausible view then the ld. Pr.CIT- 26 HI…

Suresh Chand Gupta, Gandhidham vs. Pr. CIT, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 43/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CIT-D.R

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 57

…stock lying at the end of the year. The Tribunal, therefore noted that the Assessing Officer had carried out detailed enquiries and taken a plausible view.” 11. The Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Greenworld Corporation [2009] 181 Taxman 111 (SC)/[2009] 314 ITR 81 (SC) held that an order of assessment passed by ITO cannot be interfered with only because another view is possible. 12. The Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Gokuldas Exports [2012] 20 taxmann.com 491 (Karnataka) held that the phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue' under section 263 has to be read in conjunction with the e…

Shri Madhavrav H. Fichadia, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 82/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…ew/opinion which amounts to change of opinion and is not permissible under the Income Tax Act. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Parshuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. Vs. ITO, 106 ITR 1, CIT vs. Greenworld Corporation, 314 ITR 81 and the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gokuldas Exports, 333 ITR 214. The Ld. AR also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 97 taxmann.com 671 (Ahmedabad Tribunal). The Ld. AR further submitted that clause (a) of Explanation-2 to Section 263 of the Act does n…

Shishpal Singh Jadaun, Karauli vs. PCIT, Udaipur

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

ITA 177/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Avadhesh Kumar, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…r finding that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and that it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and that too, basal on tangible materials on record, is impermissible rendering the resultant order void A CIT Vs. Green World Corporation 314 ITR 81 (SC) The Income-tax Officer, while passing an order of assessment perform a judicial function. A revision application lies before the Commissioner. It is trite that the jurisdiction exercised by the revisional authority pertains to his appellate jurisdiction. The jurisdiction under section 263 can be exercised only when both the following conditio…

Om Prakash Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 204/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Us. In This Appeal The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Saraswat (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

…case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 as also by the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Russell Properties (P.) Ltd. v. A. Chowdhury, Addl. CIT [1977] 109 ITR 229” 1.8.3 Greenworld Corporation – [2009] 181 Taxman 111 , 314 ITR 81 (SC) Held at para No. 29: “The scope of provisions of section 263 of the Act is no longer res integra. The power to exercise of suo motu of revision in terms of section 263(1) is in the nature of supervisory jurisdiction and the same can be exercised only if the circumstances specified therein, viz., (1) the order is erroneous; (2) by virtue of th…

Ravi Metallics Limited, Rourkela vs. Pr.CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 34/CTK/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaravi Metallics Limited, I/10, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan No.Adqps 4031 G ………………Assessee Versus Pr.Cit, Sambalpur ………………..Revenue Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ar For The Assessee Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr For The Revenue Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, Passed U/S.263 Of The Act In Case No.Pcit/Sbp/263/26/2018-19, Dated 29.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. Heard On The Question Of Condonation Of Delay 2. On Perusal Of The Record, We Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 686 Days. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Filed An Application Along With Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay, Wherein It Has Been Submitted That The Delay Occurred In Filing The Present Appeal Is Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate But Due To Unfortunate & Unavoidable Circumstances Beyond

Section 253Section 263

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK श्री जाजज माथन, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अरुण खोड़पऩया ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ravi Metallics Limited, I/10, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 PAN No.ADQPS 4031 G ………………Assessee Versus Pr.CIT, Sambalpur ………………..Revenue Shri P.R.Mohanty, AR for the assessee Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR for the Revenue Date of Hearing : 30/05/2022 Date of Pronouncement : 30/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the ord…

Wealthy Sky Development Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Pr.CIT-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 15/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43(5)(d)Section 73Section 73(4)

…sses in derivatives in the assessment order does not mean that the AO is not made application of mind. The ld. AO has taken one possible view and change of the opinion by PCIT Jaipur is not permissible as has been held in the case of Green world Corporation 314 ITR 81 (2009) (SC). In view of the facts and circumstances, it is humbly prayed that the revision order of ld. PCIT, Jaipur deserves to be quashed and the assessment order as passed by the ld. AO may please be upheld. On the other hand the ld. D/R supported the order of the Pr. CIT and 5. submitted that in Explanation to section 73 of the Act, the word…

Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port Trust, Kolkata vs. PCIT-5, Kolkata

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for AY 2015-16 is allowed and for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

ITA 170/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata06 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Manish Borad

Section 139(1)Section 244ASection 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice President & Sri Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A. Nos.: 169 & 170/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Syma Prasad Mookerjee Port Trust..........................Appellant [PAN: AAAJK 0361 L] Vs. PCIT-5, Kolkata....................................................Respondent Appearances by: Sh. K. Meenatchi Sundaram, CA, appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Md. Ghayas Uddin, CIT(D/R), appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : March 23rd, 2022 Date of pronouncing the order : June 6th, 20…

Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port Trust, Kolkata vs. PCIT-5, Kolkata

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for AY 2015-16 is allowed and for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

ITA 169/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata06 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Manish Borad

Section 139(1)Section 244ASection 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

M/S Rahul Raj Estates Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Central - 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3523/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Reepal TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar

Section 115JSection 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 263(1)

…laced only because the CIT has different opinion in the matter- a) CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex 395 ITR I (SC) b) CIT v. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC) c) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) d) CIT vs. Greenworld Corporation, 314 ITR 81 (SC) 8. On the other hand, Ld.DR relied on the orders passed by the Ld.Pr.CIT. (A.Y: 2012-13 & 2014-15) M/s. RahulRaj Estates Pvt. Ltd., 9. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observed that in search proceedings 15 red colored notebooks were found from the premises of Raj K Shah which contain noting of receipts and…

M/S Rahul Raj Estates Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Central - 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3522/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Reepal TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar

Section 115JSection 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 263(1)

Shri Radha Govind Lashkari, Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 32/JPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Savita Bundas, (CIT D/R)

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…Vs. Godawari Sugar Mills Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) and CIT Vs. Shakti Charities (2000) 160 CTR 107 (Mad.). The facts and submissions are verifiable from the assessment record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Green World Corporation (2009) 314 ITR 81 (SC) held that ‘The jurisdiction under section 263 can be exercised only when both the following conditions are satisfied (i) the order of the assessing officer should be erroneous and (ii) it should be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. These conditions are conjunctive. An order of assessment passed by the Assessing officer should not…