← All Phrases

“erroneous and prejudicial”

Rectification & RevisionSection 263Section 2633,136 judgments

The decision most relied on for erroneous and prejudicial is Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (243 ITR 83), cited in 2,943 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on erroneous and prejudicial

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT
243 ITR 83 · 2000 · Supreme Court
2,943
citing judgments

For revision under Section 263, the Assessing Officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue; if either condition is not met, the revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked. An order is not erroneous merely because the Assessing Officer did not record the details of enquiries conducted, provided due enquiries were made.

CIT v. Max India Ltd.
295 ITR 282 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,162
citing judgments

Under Section 263, an assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue merely because the Principal Commissioner disagrees with the Assessing Officer's (AO) view, particularly if the AO has adopted one of two permissible views in law, unless that view is completely unsustainable. If due inquiries were made, the AO's order does not become erroneous solely because the fact of inquiries was not recorded.

CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd.
203 ITR 108 · 1993 · High Court
990
citing judgments

The Commissioner cannot revise an assessment order under Section 263 merely because they hold a different opinion or believe a deeper inquiry was warranted if the Assessing Officer has applied their mind and conducted some inquiry. Revision under Section 263 is permissible only in cases of a complete lack of inquiry or non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer, not for merely inadequate inquiry.

CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.
332 ITR 167 · 2011 · High Court
897
citing judgments

The Commissioner cannot revise an assessment under Section 263 merely because the assessment order does not explicitly reflect an inquiry, or because the Commissioner holds a different opinion. An inquiry, even if considered inadequate, or an assessment based on a plausible view by the Assessing Officer after due examination, does not automatically make the order erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.

Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT
67 ITR 84 · 1968 · Supreme Court
616
citing judgments

An assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interests if the Assessing Officer accepts a sum offered as income by an assessee, even when that sum was not actually earned, thereby allowing revision under Section 263.

Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT
99 ITR 375 · 1975 · High Court
543
citing judgments

An assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue if the Assessing Officer fails to make proper inquiries before accepting the assessee's statements or claims. The Commissioner can revise such an order under Section 263 without conducting further inquiries himself.

ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd.
343 ITR 329 · 2012 · High Court
438
citing judgments

For exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 263, the Commissioner must first find that the Assessing Officer's order is erroneous and unsustainable in law, as this is a condition precedent. An order is not erroneous merely because two views are possible, or if the Commissioner disagrees with the Assessing Officer's permissible view, or to simply remit the matter for further enquiries.

CIT v. Vikas Polymers
341 ITR 537 · 2012 · High Court
318
citing judgments

An assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial under Section 263 merely because the Assessing Officer did not record an enquiry and its satisfactory answer in the assessment order, provided such an enquiry was conducted. For revision under Section 263, the Commissioner must also provide the assessee an opportunity of being heard and examine their explanation.

Judgments citing erroneous and prejudicial

Amsal Chem Private Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT-4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2659/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankaramsal Chem Pvt. Limited V/S. Principal Commissioner Of 4G, Kakkad House, 4Th Floor, बनाम Income Tax(Pcit),Mumbai-4, Barrack Road, Marine Lines, Room # 629,Ayakar Bhawan, Mumbai - 400 020, Maharishi Karve Road, Maharashtra Mumbai - 400 020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaca3281G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, (Virtually appeared)For Respondent: Ms. Shabana Parveen, (CIT- DR)
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263

appeal are as under:- 1. Ld. Pr. CIT, Mumbai-4 erred in law and on facts revising assessment order which is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2. Ld. Pr. CIT, Mumbai-4 erred in law and on facts revising order by simply following Supreme Court judgment ... provisions under Sec. 10 of General Clauses Act. 6. Ld. Pr. CIT, Mumbai-4 ought not to have held assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue when payments made towards contribution of PF/ESIC with one day delay as due date prescribed under the relevant Act fell

Anshul Jain, Mainpuri vs. PCIT-1, Agra

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as per direction given hereinabove

ITA 129/AGR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra31 Aug 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalpr.Cit-1, Anshul Jain, Agra. C/O Sri Shyam Narayan Vs. Jain, Mohalla Kabir Ganj, Bhogoan, Mainpuri, Uttar Pradesh-205262. Pan-Aqgpj6059E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263

providing the assessee reasonable opportunities to be heard. It is further seen that before reaching to the conclusion that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Ld. PCIT has to reach the conclusion that the AO has not made sufficient or adequate enquiries

Shalby Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1227/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years: 2020-21

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80G

respect of donation made to this party vis-à-vis the MAT income, the order of the AO was held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2.1 Another issue in respect of which the order of the AO was held to the erroneous and prejudicial ... setting aside the Assessment Order passed us. 143(3) rows 144B of the IT. Act. 1961 did 27.092022 which is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue 2 The Learned Pr Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-3 has erred in passing an order

Neeraj, Faridabad vs. Pr, CIT, Faridabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 939/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 44ASection 68Section 69A

Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) holding the order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Faridabad to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and directing the Assessing Officer to make a fresh assessment denovo, without appreciating the fact that: 1.1 The return of income ... Meanwhile, the PCIT, Faridabad, invoked his revisionary powers under section 263 and through order dated 23/03/2022 held that the impugned assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and directed the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh assessment order and to recompute the assessee's income after

Neeraj, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Faridabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 938/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 44ASection 68Section 69A

Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) holding the order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Faridabad to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and directing the Assessing Officer to make a fresh assessment denovo, without appreciating the fact that: 1.1 The return of income ... Meanwhile, the PCIT, Faridabad, invoked his revisionary powers under section 263 and through order dated 23/03/2022 held that the impugned assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and directed the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh assessment order and to recompute the assessee's income after

Reliance Industrial Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -3, Mubmai

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

ITA 3751/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Reliance Industrial Principal Commissioner Of Income Infrastructure Limited, Tax – 3, 5Th Floor, Nkm International House, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 178 Backbay Reclamation Marine Maharshi Karve Road, Lines Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan:Aaacr7637P (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

contended that the impugned order of Ld. PCIT does not satisfy the twin condition where the assessment order has to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Ld. AR relied on a catena of decisions in support of the assessee’s contention. 6. The Learned Departmental ... conduct any enquiry with regard to the assessee’s claim of deduction which itself tantamounts to holding that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Further, the Ld. DR contended that the CSR expenditure is not a voluntary donation given by the assessee

Amazon Smart Commerce Solutions Private Limited, Delhi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-1, Delhi

ITA 3533/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)

examined by the Principal CIT, Delhi–1, and it was observed that, prima facie, the AO had passed the order which is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on several counts. Accordingly, the learned PCIT issued a show-cause notice under section ... impugned order and rejected the issues raised by the assessee. With regard to the issue of the assessment order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, the learned PCIT dealt with each issue elaborately in the impugned order and observed that the Assessing Officer had raised queries

Davinder Kumar Mago, Punjabi Bagh vs. DCIT/ACIT Central Circle, Ddn, Dehradun

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 17/DDN/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Davinder Kumar Mago Vs Dcit/Acit 12/1, Punjabi Bagh, Central Circle, External Punjabi Bagh, Dehradun New Delhi-110026 Uttarakhand Pan-Ajhpm9802A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. (Vc) Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order By Pr.Cit (Central), Kanpur At Meerut Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1861 (“The Act”) Dated 08.01.2026 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act.

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

under Section 263 of the Act, but, he must, at least indicate in his order how the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The revisional power under Section 263 of the Act is not meant to be exercised to correct every ... error of fact, but the error must be of such a nature that it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The PCIT, in revisional proceedings under Section 263 of the Act, has no jurisdiction to set aside the order of assessment merely to conduct another Investigation

Sheela Goyal, Chandigarh vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 690/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 690/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Sheela Goyal, The Pcit, 3180, Sector 28-D, बनाम Chandigarh Chandigarh Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaypg0407H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Rajat Kumar Kureel, Cit Dr (Virtual Mode) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15.01.2026 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.03.2026

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajat Kumar Kureel, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

income of the assessee as per the applicable provisions. The order passed u/s 147 of the Act, dated 31.03.2023, thus appears to be erroneous, and prejudicial to the interest of revenue in terms of provisions of section 263 of the Act including Explanation 2 inserted by Finance ... reply to the Ld. PCIT Chandigarh-1. The Ld. PCIT’s findings that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, is therefore, not appropriate and thus cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the issuance of notice and order passed

Sri Guru Ramalingeshwara Souharda Pattina Sahakari Niyamitha, Maski vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1174/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, JCIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

view that the AO failed to properly examine this issue and allowed the deduction without verification. Therefore, the assessment order was considered erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue under section 263 of the Act. 3.6 In response to the notice issued under section ... this interest income. As per Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act, an order passed without proper enquiry or verification is considered erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 5.3 Therefore, the PCIT held that the assessment order dated 06.09.2022 was passed without proper examination

Swd Industries, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee for the respective assessment years are allowed, and the impugned orders passed by the learned PCIT under section 263 of the Act are set aside

ITA 9012/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 9007/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) 2. Ita No. 9008/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) 3. Ita No. 9009/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) 4. Ita No. 9010/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) 5. Ita No. 9011/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. Ita No. 9012/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Swd Industries, Pcit (Central), 1402, South Tower 25, Mumbai-1, South Prabhadevi, Vs. R. No. 1001, 10Th Mumbai-400 025 Floor, Pratistha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaofs8319L (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor A/W Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Shri Shivam Yadav, Shri Shri Vinod Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Vivek Perampurna, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 263

That the PCIT, Mumbai has erred in invoking Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act by holding the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, despite the fact that the Assessing Officer had completed the assessment after due and comprehensive enquiry and verification ... Group), statement recorded and after mandatory approval u/s 153D of the Act from Addl CIT and therefore, to hold such an order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue is unjustified and bad in law. 9. The PCIT, Mumbai in the impugned order as failed to point

Swd Industries, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee for the respective assessment years are allowed, and the impugned orders passed by the learned PCIT under section 263 of the Act are set aside

ITA 9011/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 9007/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) 2. Ita No. 9008/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) 3. Ita No. 9009/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) 4. Ita No. 9010/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) 5. Ita No. 9011/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. Ita No. 9012/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Swd Industries, Pcit (Central), 1402, South Tower 25, Mumbai-1, South Prabhadevi, Vs. R. No. 1001, 10Th Mumbai-400 025 Floor, Pratistha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaofs8319L (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor A/W Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Shri Shivam Yadav, Shri Shri Vinod Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Vivek Perampurna, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 263

That the PCIT, Mumbai has erred in invoking Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act by holding the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, despite the fact that the Assessing Officer had completed the assessment after due and comprehensive enquiry and verification ... Group), statement recorded and after mandatory approval u/s 153D of the Act from Addl CIT and therefore, to hold such an order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue is unjustified and bad in law. 9. The PCIT, Mumbai in the impugned order as failed to point

Swd Industries, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee for the respective assessment years are allowed, and the impugned orders passed by the learned PCIT under section 263 of the Act are set aside

ITA 9010/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 9007/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) 2. Ita No. 9008/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) 3. Ita No. 9009/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) 4. Ita No. 9010/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) 5. Ita No. 9011/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. Ita No. 9012/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Swd Industries, Pcit (Central), 1402, South Tower 25, Mumbai-1, South Prabhadevi, Vs. R. No. 1001, 10Th Mumbai-400 025 Floor, Pratistha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaofs8319L (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor A/W Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Shri Shivam Yadav, Shri Shri Vinod Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Vivek Perampurna, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 263

That the PCIT, Mumbai has erred in invoking Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act by holding the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, despite the fact that the Assessing Officer had completed the assessment after due and comprehensive enquiry and verification ... Group), statement recorded and after mandatory approval u/s 153D of the Act from Addl CIT and therefore, to hold such an order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue is unjustified and bad in law. 9. The PCIT, Mumbai in the impugned order as failed to point

Swd Industries, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee for the respective assessment years are allowed, and the impugned orders passed by the learned PCIT under section 263 of the Act are set aside

ITA 9009/MUM/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 9007/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) 2. Ita No. 9008/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) 3. Ita No. 9009/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) 4. Ita No. 9010/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) 5. Ita No. 9011/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. Ita No. 9012/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Swd Industries, Pcit (Central), 1402, South Tower 25, Mumbai-1, South Prabhadevi, Vs. R. No. 1001, 10Th Mumbai-400 025 Floor, Pratistha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaofs8319L (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor A/W Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Shri Shivam Yadav, Shri Shri Vinod Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Vivek Perampurna, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 263

That the PCIT, Mumbai has erred in invoking Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act by holding the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, despite the fact that the Assessing Officer had completed the assessment after due and comprehensive enquiry and verification ... Group), statement recorded and after mandatory approval u/s 153D of the Act from Addl CIT and therefore, to hold such an order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue is unjustified and bad in law. 9. The PCIT, Mumbai in the impugned order as failed to point

Swd Industries, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee for the respective assessment years are allowed, and the impugned orders passed by the learned PCIT under section 263 of the Act are set aside

ITA 9008/MUM/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 9007/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) 2. Ita No. 9008/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) 3. Ita No. 9009/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) 4. Ita No. 9010/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) 5. Ita No. 9011/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. Ita No. 9012/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Swd Industries, Pcit (Central), 1402, South Tower 25, Mumbai-1, South Prabhadevi, Vs. R. No. 1001, 10Th Mumbai-400 025 Floor, Pratistha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaofs8319L (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor A/W Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Shri Shivam Yadav, Shri Shri Vinod Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Vivek Perampurna, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 263

That the PCIT, Mumbai has erred in invoking Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act by holding the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, despite the fact that the Assessing Officer had completed the assessment after due and comprehensive enquiry and verification ... Group), statement recorded and after mandatory approval u/s 153D of the Act from Addl CIT and therefore, to hold such an order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue is unjustified and bad in law. 9. The PCIT, Mumbai in the impugned order as failed to point

Swd Industries, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee for the respective assessment years are allowed, and the impugned orders passed by the learned PCIT under section 263 of the Act are set aside

ITA 9007/MUM/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 9007/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) 2. Ita No. 9008/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) 3. Ita No. 9009/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) 4. Ita No. 9010/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) 5. Ita No. 9011/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. Ita No. 9012/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Swd Industries, Pcit (Central), 1402, South Tower 25, Mumbai-1, South Prabhadevi, Vs. R. No. 1001, 10Th Mumbai-400 025 Floor, Pratistha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaofs8319L (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor A/W Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Shri Shivam Yadav, Shri Shri Vinod Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Vivek Perampurna, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 263

That the PCIT, Mumbai has erred in invoking Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act by holding the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, despite the fact that the Assessing Officer had completed the assessment after due and comprehensive enquiry and verification ... Group), statement recorded and after mandatory approval u/s 153D of the Act from Addl CIT and therefore, to hold such an order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue is unjustified and bad in law. 9. The PCIT, Mumbai in the impugned order as failed to point

Claymine Microns LLP, Wankaner vs. Principal CIT 1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 216/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 216/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Claymine Microns Llp Vs. Pcit Survey No. 59 At Ratavirda, Nr. Capron Aayakar Bhawan, Race Course Ceramic Sartanpar Road, Wankaner, Ring Road, Rajkot, Gujarat - Gujarat - 363641 360001 Pan/Gir No.: Aamfc4286C (Assessee) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora, Ar राज" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/03/2026

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

Claymine Microns LLP vs. PCIT Order of AY 2018-19 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 23.04.2021 is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 3. The appellant further reserves it’s right to add, alter, amend or modify any of the aforesaid grounds before ... considering the reply of the assessee, the assessing officer has framed the assessment order, therefore, order passed by the assessing officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Hence, the jurisdiction exercised by the Ld.PCIT u/s.263 of the Act should be quashed. 11. On the other

Microtek Infrastrutures Private Limited, Delhi vs. PCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3112/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year:2020-21]

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 68

reproduced hereunder:- “7 In view of the above discussion, I find that the assessment order passed by the AO dated. 26.09.2022 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 8 In this regard, reliance is also place on the following decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court ... been passed without making necessary examination/verification/enquiries on the issue discussed above and therefore, I hold the Assessment Order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly, the said Assessment Order is hereby set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer on the above issues. Needless

ACIT, Gnr Circle, Gnr, Gandhinagar vs. Sahajanand Laser Technology Limited, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 94/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

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

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)

provisions at Rs.7,38,27,158/= and under book profit u/s.115JB at Rs.15,76,68,533/=. This assessment order was found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, therefore Ld.PCIT passed revision order dated 13-02-2019 with direction to the AO to make proper inquiry

Sahajanand Laser Technology Limited, Gandhinagar vs. The Asstt.CIT., Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 839/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

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

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)

provisions at Rs.7,38,27,158/= and under book profit u/s.115JB at Rs.15,76,68,533/=. This assessment order was found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, therefore Ld.PCIT passed revision order dated 13-02-2019 with direction to the AO to make proper inquiry