← All Phrases

“revision u/s 263”

Rectification & RevisionSection 263Section 263521 judgments

The decision most relied on for revision u/s 263 is CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan (384 ITR 200), cited in 264 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on revision u/s 263

CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan
384 ITR 200 · 2016 · Supreme Court
264
citing judgments

The Commissioner's revisional power under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act is not limited to the points specified in the show-cause notice, nor is the exercise of this power contingent upon issuing a show-cause notice.

Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CIT
321 ITR 92 · 2010 · High Court
194
citing judgments

This case clarifies the scope of the Commissioner's revisional powers under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, holding that an assessment order can only be revised if it is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, echoing the principles laid down in Malabar Industrial.

CIT v. Nirma Chemical Works Ltd.
309 ITR 67 · 2009 · High Court
149
citing judgments

An assessment order is not erroneous or prejudicial under Section 263 merely because it is silent on a claim or lacks explicit reasons for its acceptance. Revision under Section 263 is impermissible if the Assessing Officer has taken a plausible view, even if the PCIT holds a different opinion.

Babulal C. Borana v. ITO
282 ITR 251 · 2006 · High Court
138
citing judgments

An assessment order becomes erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, justifying revision under Section 263, if the Assessing Officer fails to conduct proper inquiries or apply his mind to relevant issues, such as the genuineness of purchases when corresponding sales are accepted, often leading to a remand for fresh adjudication.

CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee
341 ITR 434 · 2012 · High Court
99
citing judgments

An assessment order is erroneous for the purpose of Section 263 if the Assessing Officer fails to apply mind to relevant material, proceeds on an incorrect assumption of facts, or makes an incorrect application of law.

CIT v. Vodafone Essar South Ltd.
212 Taxmann 184 · 2013 · High Court
86
citing judgments

When an Assessing Officer conducts an inquiry and considers the assessee's disclosures, the Commissioner cannot invoke Section 263 to revise the assessment on grounds of inadequate inquiry or a mere difference of opinion. The absence of a detailed discussion on an issue in the assessment order does not automatically mean the Assessing Officer failed to apply his mind.

Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat-2 v. Shreeji Prints (P.) Ltd.
130 Taxmann.com 294 · 2021 · Supreme Court
78
citing judgments

A plausible view taken by the Assessing Officer, after due enquiry and verification, does not render an assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue for the purpose of revision under Section 263, thereby limiting the scope of revisional powers.

Income-Tax v. Gokuldas Exports
333 ITR 214 · 2011 · High Court
42
citing judgments

An assessment order is not considered erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for invoking Section 263 if the Assessing Officer has adopted one of two possible views, even if the Commissioner of Income-tax disagrees with that view. The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue' must be read in conjunction with the expression 'erroneous'.

Judgments citing revision u/s 263

Vg Rajamani Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. PCIT-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the order passed by the Commissioner dated 14

ITA 812/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.812/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. V.G. Rajamani Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Pcit-1 बनाम/ Vs. 66, Subbiah Mudaliar Street, Coimbatore. Thomas Street, Coimbatore-641 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcv-1589-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) Erode - Ld.Ar !"थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-10-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-01-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) Erode - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263

facts, held that the assessee’s case was covered under Clause (c) of Sec 263(1) which puts a bar on initiation of revision u/s 263 when an appeal is pending before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR submitted that considering the same, the revision would ... Therefore, considering the facts of the case and respectfully following the binding judicial precedent as aforesaid, we would hold that the impugned revision u/s 263 was bad-in-law and the same is therefore, liable to the quashed. We order so. 8. The appeal stand allowed in terms

Golden Vats Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the order passed by the Commissioner dated 14

ITA 416/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.416/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Golden Vats Private Limited Acit बनाम New No.272, 3Rd Floor, Central Circle-3(2), Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Chennai. / Vs. Gopalapuram , Chennai-600 086. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccg-9782-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman (FCA)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 263Section 263(1)Section 3Section 40

that the assessee’s case was covered under Clause (c) of Explanation-1 to Sec. 263 which puts a bar on initiation of revision u/s 263 when an appeal is pending before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR submitted that considering this decision, the revision would ... issues are already pending before first appellate authority, the order passed by Ld. AO, in our considered opinion, could not be subjected to revision u/s 263. The assessee’s case, in such a situation, would be covered under Clause (c) of Explanation-1 to Sec. 263 which puts

Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-3(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 170/CHNY/2023[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jan 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.170/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2003-04) M/S. Southern Petrochemical Income Tax Officer बनाम Industries Corporation Limited Corporate Ward-3(1) 88, Spic House, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 034. / Vs. Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4668-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocates)-Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit)-Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-10-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-01-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj KumarFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) &
Section 143(3)

fertilizers, pharma, biotech products and providing engineering services. The assessee was assessed u/s 143(3) on 30.03.2006. However, the assessment was subjected to revision u/s 263 and accordingly, another assessment was framed on 26.12.2008 which, after confirmation by learned first appellate authority, is in further challenge before us. The assessee

M/S. Pane Mangalore Rss Bank, Bantwal vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-2(1), Mangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 958/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(d)Section 8O

erroneous by labelling the same to be not in accordance with binding judgements prejudicial to the interest of the assessee to warrant revision u/s 263 of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 4. The learned P.C.I.T ought to have appreciated that

Anamika Garg, Dewas vs. CIT, Ujjain

ITA 214/IND/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Anamika Garg, Pcit, 117, Tukoganj Marg, Ujjain बनाम/ Nayapura, Vs. Dewas (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aiwpg 3922 D Assessee By Shri Suresh Gupta, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2024

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54B

through the relevant material on record. It can be seen from para 4 of the ld. CIT‟s order that: “A proposal for revision u/s 263 of the IT Act, 1961 was received from DCIT(IT)-1, Pune through the Jt.CIT(IT), Pune vide letter No. Pn/Jt.CIT(IT)/263/2016-17/61 dated ... jurisdiction on the CIT to revise an assessment order which he considers erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The process of revision u/s 263 of the Act initiates only when the CIT calls for and examines the record of any proceeding under this Act and considers that

Mrs.Sadhika Ganni, Rajahmundry vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 123/VIZ/2022[F.Y.2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Dec 2023

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.123/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Mrs Sadhika Ganni Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of No.19-5-21/6, Near Kambala Park Income Tax Swatantra Hospital Premises Circle-2 Main Road Rajahmundry Rajahmundry [Pan : Bhspg6181J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam,ARFor Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

order passed u/s 143(3) of the IT Act is invalid / void ab-initio order, therefore, the same cannot be subject to revision u/s 263 of the IT Act and the Ld.PCIT cannot exercise revisionary jurisdiction. 5. The Ld.AR contended that the ground being a legal ground does not require ... u/s 143(2) of the Act. The assessment order passed in the absence of notice issued u/s 143(2) cannot be subject to revision u/s 263 of the Act and the Ld.PCIT cannot exercise revisionary jurisdiction and pass order. The Ld.AR, therefore, pleaded the Tribunal to provide an opportunity

Shri Leelahar Palasiyawala, Indore vs. The ITO 4(4), Indore

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 346/IND/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Leeladhar Palasiyawala, Pr.Cit-1, Village Kalariya, Post Indore बनाम/ Kalariya, Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Bqdppo511K Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal, Ca & Shri N. D. Patwa, Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2023

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54B

views, the assessment-order cannot be said to be erroneous in so far it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue and consequently revision u/s 263 cannot be done. 13. We have considered rival submission of both sides and perused the orders of lower authorities as also the documents placed

Smt. Janki Kishan Hingorani, Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 56/RJT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt.Janki Kishan Hingorani The Pr.Cit 6/7, Subham Complex Rajkot-1 Royal Park, University Road बनाम/ Rajkot Rajkot – 380 006 Vs. Gujarat (Appellant ) ( Respondent ) Pan: Pan : Aahph 4774M Assessee By Ms.Amrin Pathan, Ld.Ar Revenue By Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/12/2023

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

raised the following grounds:- “All the grounds of appeal in this appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. Invalid Revision u/s 263: ITA No.56 /Rjt/2021 Janki Kishan Hingorani vs. Pr.CIT AY : 2015-16 [2] 1. The learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot-1 ("PCIT") erred

Chems Deal Inc P Ltd., Indore vs. The CIT-1, Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 166/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Chems Deal Inc Pvt. Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 3Rd Floor Tulsi 622 Creater Indore Vs. Brajeshwari Colony Pipliahana Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aadcc 6578 R Assessee By Shri Manjeet Sachdeva & Avinash Gaur, Ars Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2023

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

facts and in the circumstance of the case the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income tax was wrong in invoking the power of revision u/s 263 of the Income tax Act. 02. That the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income tax erred in passing an order u/s 263 without appreciating the fact

Sri Seetaramanjanenya Sortex, Kakinada vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 147/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.147/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Sri Seetaramanjaneya Sortex Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 1-2015/A, Uppalanka Income Tax Kakinada Visakhapatnam [Pan : Abdfs4641P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Paradeep Tayal & OrsFor Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 194A(3)(i)Section 194A(3)(iii)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

dated 12.03.2021 for the A.Y.2018-19 was prima facie erroneous in law and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, therefore, proposed for revision u/s 263 of the Act and issued show cause notice dated 14.03.2023 to show cause as to why the assessment should not be revised. There was no compliance

Harmony Yarns Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Surat

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 348/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.348/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Harmony Yarns Private Vs. The Pcit-1, Limited, Surat Plot-65, 1St Floor Subhash Nagar Society, Ghod Dod Road, Nr. Ram Chowk, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaach5895F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Airiju Jaikaran, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/10/2023 23/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

prejudicial to the interest of Revenue within the meaning of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act and is required to be revised u/s 263 of the Act, 1961. Accordingly, ld. PCIT issued show cause notice bearing DIN No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2022- 23/1050992059(l) dated 20.03.2023 and was duly served upon ... opportunity of being heard and to offer explanation, if any, as well as to adduce evidence, if any, against the proposal of revision u/s 263 of the Act. A complete detail of the facts on account of which the remedial action u/s 263 of the Act proposed, was discussed

Sourabh Sharma, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 240/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

wherein it is held that the powers of the Commissioner are very wide in exercising the powers of revision u/s 263. It is no doubt true that for making a valid order u/s 263, it is essential for the Commissioner to record an express finding that the order sought ... based on the details placed on record takes a plausible view of the matter the same cannot be subjected to revision u/s. 263 even after the addition of explanation 2 in the Act. This view is further supported by the view already taken in the case of the Rajasthan High

Coronate Constructions, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

ITA 1024/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 288A

erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 1.2. The issue being a debatable issue, cannot be subject matter of revision u/s 263 of the Act, as the order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 22.12.2019 cannot be considered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar vs. Sh. Jaimal Singh, L/H. Sh. Prem Chand, Tarn Taran

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 82/ASR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Nov 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(9)Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 263

vires of order of revision passed u/s 263 cannot be challenged in appeal against assessment order passed in consequence to such order of revision u/s 263. 5. The Learned CIT A has erred in law and facts and circumstances of the case by not declaring reassessment u/s 147 made

National Stock Exchange of India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result ground no.1 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed and grounds no

ITA 730/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.730 & 731/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18) National Stock Exchange Vs. Dcit, Circle 7(1)(1) Of India Limited Room No. 126, 1 St Floor, Exchange Plaza, Bandra Aaykar Bhavan, Kurla Complex, Bandra M.K. Road, East, Mumbai – 400051 Churchgate -400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacn1797L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Jehangir Mistri Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Srinivasu

issues and after due application of his mind and considering the relevant provisions of the law accepted the stand of the BSE. Therefore, revision u/s 263 of the Act cannot be made on the basis of the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act of the subsequent assessment

Madanlal Lodha, Raipur vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 32/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: Ita 32/Rpr/2022 (Assessment Years:2017-18) Madanlal Lodha, V Pr. Commissioner Of Income Ta, C/O M/S Prakash Trading Comp. S Raipur-(I) Shop No. 109 & 110, Textile Market, Pandri, Raipur, (C.G.) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By : Shri R.B. Doshi, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By : Shri S.K. Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 03-08-2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20-10-2023

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68Section 96

submission, Ld. AR argued that since the issue has already been examined by the Ld. AO the same is not open for the revision u/s 263 of the I.T. Act. Ld. AR placed is reliance on the following case laws: CIT Vs Gabrial India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (B.com.) Colour

ITO-19(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mukesh Bhoormal Jain, Mumbai

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

ITA 2177/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleito – 19(2)(2), Vs. Mukesh Bhoormal Jain Room No. 503, 5Th Floor, 9/23, Kotwala Niwas, Piramal Chambers, 3Rd Khetwadi Lane, Lalbaug, Girgaon S.O, Mumbai -400012. Mumbai-400004. Pan/Gir No. : Aaapj7585K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Smt.Sayogita Nagpal CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 263

that the order of the AO passed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue warranting revision u/s 263 of the Act. Accordingly, the Hon'ble ITAT has quashed the order passed u/s.263 of the I.T. Act. As the order u/s Mukesh Bhoormal

Abis Export India Pvt. Ltd., Rajnandgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

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

ITA 194/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 194/Rpr/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Abis Export India Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ib, Corporate House, Indamara, Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhilai Rajnandgaon (C.G.)-491 441 Pan: Aacca2881J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Bikram Jain, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 22/08/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am: The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) Dated 28.03.2023 For A.Y.2018-19. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax—Raipur-1 Has Erred In Holding The Assessment Order Passed By The National E-Assessment Centre (Neac) On 01.03.2021 As Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue As The Order Was Passed Without Making Any Enquiry On The Issues Of Applicability Of Section 14A Of The I. T. Act, 1961. The Assessment Order Passed By The Neac Is Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & Therefore The Order U/S 263 Passed By The Ld. Cit Is Unjustified, Unwarranted & Uncalled. 2. The Assessee Reserves The Right To Add, Amend Or Alter Any Grounds Of Appeal At Any Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Bikram Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 801ASection 80I

Legal Reply — Regarding initiation of 263 on the basis of audit objection and applicability of section 14A of the I.T.Act, 1961 2. Revision u/s 263 cannot be initiated on the basis of RAP objection (audit objection).The said contention of the assessee is supported by various judicial pronouncement ... Revenue authorities are thus duty bound to follow such ratio of law. 14. After holding that the order of Ld AO considered for revision u/s 263 of Act by Ld PCIT, was an erroneous order and dealing with the contention of the assessee qua the disallowance under the provisions

Gopal Sponge & Power Pvt. Ltd, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed, in terms of our observations here in above

ITA 226/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 226/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Gopal Sponge & Power Pvt. Ltd., Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Village- Siltara, Near Industrial Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur, (C.G.) Growth Centre, Phase- 2, Raipur, (C.G.) Pan: Aaccg1525F (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B. Subramanyam, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.K. Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02-08-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17-10- 2023

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801A(4)(iv)

objections have been raised by Revenue Audit and such objections are accepted, the PCIT shall decide if the relevant order under audit requires revision u/s 263, as remedial action, if yes, he shall call for the relevant records and proceed to initiate action u/s 263. Extract of the Circular

Lalita Sanjivreddy Bodkurwar, Nagpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Nagpur

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 90/NAG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

manner as desired by learned CIT thereby, substituting his judgment over learned AO's judgment which is not possible under the scheme of revision u/s 263. 3 ITA.No.90/Nag./2020 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances, the learned CIT erred in invoking revision jurisdiction on a "prima facie" view