← All Phrases

“Section 263(1)(i)”

Section References (mined)Section 263Section 263(1)(i)13 judgments

MAHAVEER SINGH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 840/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234FSection 263(1)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44A

kept in abeyance if the appeal is pending before CIT(A). Accordingly, in view of the powers entrusted to the under signed under section 263(1)(i) of the Act, the assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income tax Act dated 02/03/2023

MOHANSUNDARAM JAYASUJA,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT, CENTRAL,, CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the

ITA 959/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2020-21
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

interpretation of Section 263of the Income Tax Act, it is observed and held that in order to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 263(1) of the Income tax Act, the Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely,\n(i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought ... prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. It is further observed that if one of them is absent, recourse cannot be had to Section 263(1) of the Act.\"\n\n11. In the present set of facts and circumstances and considering the aforesaid settled judicial pronouncements, it can be safely

MOHANSUNDARAM JAYASUJA,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT, CENTRAL,, CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 958/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

interpretation of Section 263of the Income Tax Act, it is observed and held that in order to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 263(1) of the Income tax Act, the Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely, (i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised ... prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. It is further observed that if one of them is absent, recourse cannot be had to Section 263(1) of the Act.” 11. In the present set of facts and circumstances and considering the aforesaid settled judicial pronouncements, it can be safely concluded

MOHANSUNDARAM JAYASUJA,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT, CENTRAL,, CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 957/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

interpretation of Section 263of the Income Tax Act, it is observed and held that in order to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 263(1) of the Income tax Act, the Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely, (i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised ... prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. It is further observed that if one of them is absent, recourse cannot be had to Section 263(1) of the Act.” 11. In the present set of facts and circumstances and considering the aforesaid settled judicial pronouncements, it can be safely concluded

MOHANSUNDARAM JAYASUJA,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT, CENTRAL,, CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 956/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

interpretation of Section 263of the Income Tax Act, it is observed and held that in order to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 263(1) of the Income tax Act, the Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely, (i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised ... prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. It is further observed that if one of them is absent, recourse cannot be had to Section 263(1) of the Act.” 11. In the present set of facts and circumstances and considering the aforesaid settled judicial pronouncements, it can be safely concluded

SUBRAMANIAM MOHAN SUNDARAM,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT, CENTRAL,, CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the

ITA 955/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

interpretation of Section 263of the Income Tax Act, it is\nobserved and held that in order to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 263(1) of the\nIncome tax Act, the Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely,\n(i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought ... prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. It is further observed that if one of\nthem is absent, recourse cannot be had to Section 263(1) of the Act.”\n11. In the present set of facts and circumstances and considering the aforesaid\nsettled judicial pronouncements, it can be safely concluded

SUBRAMANIAM MOHAN SUDARAM,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the

ITA 954/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

interpretation of Section 263of the Income Tax Act, it is\nobserved and held that in order to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 263(1) of the\nIncome tax Act, the Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely,\n(i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought ... prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. It is further observed that if one of\nthem is absent, recourse cannot be had to Section 263(1) of the Act.”\n11. In the present set of facts and circumstances and considering the aforesaid\nsettled judicial pronouncements, it can be safely concluded

SUBRAMANIAM MOHAN SUNDARAM,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 953/CHNY/2025[953]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

interpretation of Section 263of the Income Tax Act, it is observed and held that in order to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 263(1) of the Income tax Act, the Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely, (i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised ... prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. It is further observed that if one of them is absent, recourse cannot be had to Section 263(1) of the Act.” 11. In the present set of facts and circumstances and considering the aforesaid settled judicial pronouncements, it can be safely concluded

SUBRAMANIAM MOHAN SUNDARAM,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL),, CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 952/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

interpretation of Section 263of the Income Tax Act, it is observed and held that in order to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 263(1) of the Income tax Act, the Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely, (i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised ... prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. It is further observed that if one of them is absent, recourse cannot be had to Section 263(1) of the Act.” 11. In the present set of facts and circumstances and considering the aforesaid settled judicial pronouncements, it can be safely concluded

SUBRAMANIAM MOHAN SUNDARAM,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), , CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 951/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

interpretation of Section 263of the Income Tax Act, it is observed and held that in order to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 263(1) of the Income tax Act, the Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely, (i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised ... prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. It is further observed that if one of them is absent, recourse cannot be had to Section 263(1) of the Act.” 11. In the present set of facts and circumstances and considering the aforesaid settled judicial pronouncements, it can be safely concluded

RAKESH SATYANARAYANA AGARWAL,HYDERABAD. vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 450/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayan Toshniwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Smt. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)Section 69ASection 92C

cancelling the order under section 92CA and directing a fresh order under the said section.]” From the perusal of the provisions contained in section 263(1)(i) of the Act, it is abundantly clear that the Ld. PCIT can pass an order to enhance the order

SABITA AGRAWAL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed, in terms of our observations

ITA 110/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.110/Rpr/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. Sabita Agrawal Pcit 237, Behind Gayatri Mandir Sambalpur Samta Colony, Raipur – 492 001 Odisha – 768 004

For Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

relevant assessment year were called for and examined by the PCIT, Sambalpur by virtue of the statutory powers vested with him under Section 263(1) of the Act. On verification of the assessment reports, Learned PCIT has observed that the AO had not examined/verified the certain issues during the course ... erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Accordingly, the assessment order dated 12.02.2021 was cancelled under Section 263(1)(i) of the Act and the Assessing Officer was directed to conduct enquiry/verification of issues mentioned in para - 4 of the order of PCIT

THINK AND LEARN PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 418/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Think & Learn Private Limited, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 3, 4/1, 6Th Floor, Tower D, Ibc Bengaluru. Knowledge Park, Bannerghatta Main Road, Opposite Fire Station, Bengaluru – 560 029. Pan : Aaect 0931 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 24.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2022 Of The Principal Cit – 3 (Pcit), Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1962 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) In Relation To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Providing Online Learning Platform In The Name Of “Byju” For Kindergarten To 12Th Standard Students & Other Related Services. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2017-18 Declaring Total Income Of Page 2 Of 10

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 245RSection 245R(2)(i)Section 263Section 40Section 56(2)(vii)

appeal against the Order of Assessment under section 251(1)(a) of the Act can confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment. Under section 263(1)(i) of the Act, the CIT(A) has power of cancelling an assessment and directing a fresh assessment besides enhancing or modifying the assessment