“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

Insight Print Communications Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The PCIT, Mumbai-4, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3384/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21 Insight Print Communications Pcit, Mumbai-4 Private Limited A-14, Synthofine Industrial Estate, Behind Virvani Industrial Estate, Vs. Dindoshi, Off Aarey Road, Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400063 (Pan: Aabci6530P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Lalchand Choudhary, Ca Revenue : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Revisionary Order By Ld. Pcit, Mumbai-4, Vide Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2024- 25/1074740466(1), Dated 20.03.2025 Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”) Against The Assessment Order By Assessment Unit, U/S. 143(3) R.W.S.144B Of The Act, Dated 22.09.2022, For Ay 2020-21. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. The Appellant Prefers The Following Appeal Against The Order Dated 20/03/2025 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-4 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Pcit ") Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act"). Each Of The Grounds Is In Alternative & Without Prejudice To Other.

For Appellant: Shri Lalchand Choudhary, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 40

aggrieved by that order, it has the right to appeal before CIT(A). Similarly, if the department finds that the order passed is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, statute provides mechanism to the department (PCIT) to invoke revisionary powers and set aside the order of assessment

J. M. Housing Limited, Delhi vs. Pr. CIT (Central) Knp Meerut, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8248/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22] J.M. Housing Limited, Pr.Cit (Central) Kanpur, At Meerut, 312/3T/F5 Pratap Bhawan, Aayakar Bhawan, Bhainsali Ground, Bhahadur Shah Zafar Marg, Vs Meerut, Uttar Pradesh-25001 Central Delhi, Delhi-11002 Pan-Aaccj1692E Assessee Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 68

assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2021-22 passed by AO on 19.12.2022 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, the Assessment order needs to be revised u/s 263 of the Income ... Assessing Officer in as much as the necessary verification of facts/enquiries which should have been made, have not been made, making the order erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue within the meaning of section 263 read with Clause (a) of Explanation-2 there under. I, therefore, under the powers

Decent Securities (P) Ltd, Delhi vs. Pr, CIT Delhi-1, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4799/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms Madhumita Roym/S. Decent Securities (P) Ltd, Vs. Pr. Cit, Kd-195, Pitampura, Delhi-1 New Delhi-110034 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacd4440N Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Adv Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Shri Ankit Kumar, Adv Revenue By: Shri Daya Inder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 13/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Daya Inder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

understatement of income by Rs. 5,18,43,912/-, the ld PCIT treated the order of the ld AO dated 31.12.2019 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and passed revision order u/s 263 of the Act on 11.03.2022 directing the ld AO to consider the correct figure ... creditors, which was made in the original assessment order dated 31.12.2019, the order passed by the ld AO dated 30.03.2023 was treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue by the ld PCIT warranting revision u/s 263 of the Act. Further, the ld PCIT noted that even

Harish Narang, Panipat vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3637/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Harish Narang, The Principal Commissioner Of H. No.238, Ward No.8, Income Tax, Rohtak, Panipat, Haryana-132103 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Opp. Mansarover Park, Rohtak, Haryana-124001 Pan:Acvpn4090J Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Amit Kaushik, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.12.2025

Section 144BSection 147Section 263Section 69C

been made. 6.1 In view of the facts discussed in foregoing paras, it is quite clear that the assessment order dated 16.03.2023 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, in as much as the Assessing Officer should have conducted detailed enquiries on the above issues and made

Manohar Filaments Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. PCIT, Central-3, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2645/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2017-18 ] Manohar & Filaments Pvt. `Vs. Pcit, (Central)-3, Delhi Ltd, B-59, G. T. Karnal Road, Industrial, Area, New Delhi Pan No.Aaacm1116E Appellant Respondent

Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 263

also erred in holding that the original assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 153C/143(3) of Act was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 3. On the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the directions issued by the Ld. PCIT under section ... Counsel submitted that the Ld.PCIT travelled beyond the scope of Section 263 in holding that the assessment order passed u/s.153C is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that when there was no incriminating materials were found in the course

Manohar Filaments Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. PCIT, (Central)-3, Delhi

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

ITA 2644/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2016-17 ] Manohar & Filaments Pvt. `Vs. Pcit, (Central)-3, Delhi Ltd, B-59, G. T. Karnal Road, Industrial, Area, New Delhi Pan No.Aaacm1116E Appellant Respondent

Section 153CSection 153DSection 263

also erred in holding that the original assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 153C/143(3) of Act was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 3. On the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the directions issued by the Ld. PCIT under section ... against the subsequent rectified order dated March 14, 1989, if he was of the view that the same is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. We are, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal made no mistake in coming to the conclusion that the order

DCIT, Circle 3 4, Mumbai vs. Tata Consultancy Services Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly

ITA 2244/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR

Section 92CSection 92C(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula, Haryana vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula, Haryana

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

ITA 668/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

For Respondent: Ms. Rattan Kaur & Shri A.K. Jindal, C.A's

Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)Section 43B

facts of the case in passing order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act holding that the assessment order dated 26.12.2022 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue which is highly unjustified, uncalled for and needs to be set aside. 2. That the PCIT has erred ... provisions of the Haryana VAT Act providing for a penal rate of 3%, the PCIT was justified in holding that the order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The AO is directed to examine the matter afresh in light of these observations. 14. Nothing stated hereinabove

Pujya Sharanabasaveshwara Pattina Souharda Sahakari Sangha Ni Maski, Maski vs. Income-Tax Office, Ward-1, Raichur

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1180/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 133Section 143Section 144BSection 263Section 56Section 80

Income Tax Act 1961 (The Act) on 19 September 2022 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. Nil is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2. The assessee aggrieved with the same is in appeal before us. Though assessee has raised seven grounds of appeal ... under section 80 P (2) (d) of the Act is allowable. Thus the order stated to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and a show cause notice was issued. 5. The assessee submitted a detailed reply submitting that assessee is a member cooperative society

Catholic Education Society, Mumbai vs. Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5030/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalcatholic Education Society Vs Income Tax Department Cit 338, Bb, Michael Villa, New (Exemption) Hall Road, Kurla (W), Mumbai Room No.601, 6Th Floor, 400070 Cumballa Hill Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Pan: (Aaatc5704H) Mumbai 400026 Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Dr K Shivram Sr. Advocate & Shri Shashi Bekal, Ca Respondent By : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(Exemptions), Mumbai Vide Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2024- 25/1075306167(1) Dated 30.03.2025 Passed Against Assessment Order U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 05.09.2022 For Ay 2020-21. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemption) (Cit(E)) Has Erred In Issuing A Notice & Passing An 2

For Appellant: Dr K Shivram Sr. Advocate and Shri Shashi Bekal, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Catholic Education Society order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act) when the assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(E) has erred in issuing a Notice ... 5030/Mum/2025 AY 2020-21 Catholic Education Society should have been made while completing the assessment. The issue regarding whether the assessment order is erroneous or prejudicial on the ground of insufficiency of enquiry has been dealt by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the judgment

Sunita Grovar, Panipat, Haryana vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Rohta, Rohtak Haryana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3608/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2018-19 Sunita Grover, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income T-7, Industrial Area, Panipat, Tax, Rohtak Pin: 132 103 (Haryana) Haryana Pan: Afmpg8500N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 147Section 263

Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') setting aside the assessment order dated 13.03.2023 passed by the the Assessing Officer as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue is without jurisdiction, bad in law and void-ab-initio. 2. That the PCIT has passed the impugned order in violation ... PCIT, issued show cause notice under Section 263 dated 06.02.2024. The Ld. PCIT alleged that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue (refer Page 9 of Appeal Set) because the Ld. AO had failed to invoke section 69C read with Section 115BBE

Himanshu Kukreja, Dehradun vs. ITO, Dehradun

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 147/DDN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Himanshu Kukreja Vs Income Tax Officer Matta Garg & Co. Ca 15- Income Tax Office, 13-A, Astley Hall, Dehradun, Subhash Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Uttarakjhand Pan:Ahipk9462F Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. K. Matta, Ca Revenue By Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2025

Section 13(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

dated 26.03. 2021, set aside the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act holding the same as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as per para no. 2 of the said order passed u/s 263 of the Act with direction to the A. O. to pass ... 2/11/2018. The order reads as follows – Subsequently, the Id. PCIT perused the record and noted that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, since, the AO has not examined the issue during the assessment proceedings. The AO has not called

Jalpa Uttapal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 720/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.720/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Jalpa Uttapal Patel The Pr.Cit बनाम/ N Y Steel Corporation Ahmedabad-1 V/S. 6 Puja Apartment Ahmedabad – 380 015 Vrundavan Colony Opp. Sardar Patel Hospital Maninagar Ahmedabad – 380 008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Baxpp 4020 K (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30 /09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/12/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-1 (Hereinafter Referred To As “Pcit”) Dated 26/03/2025 U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Has Contested The Very Exercise Of Revision Jurisdiction By The Ld. Pcit U/S.263 Of The Act. Jalpa Uttapal Patel Vs. Pcit Asst.Year : 2018-19 2

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 263Section 69C

accepted income declared in the ITR, without making any addition. Therefore, the order of the A.O. was found erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.” 4. Similar reasoning has been given by the PCIT in the show-cause notice issued u/s.263 of the Act, copy of which ... assessment order being fully satisfied from the evidences and explanations furnished by the assessee, that itself, does not make the assessment order erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The revision jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act cannot be exercised merely on the basis of whims and wishes

Rameshwar Finvest Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2107/KOL/2025[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Central Circle 3(3) Rameshwar Finvest Private Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, Limited Santil Palli, 110, Eastern 111, Park Street, Kolkata- Metropolitan Bypass, Opposite Vs. 700016, West Bengal Ruby, Kasba, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcr1053N Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan & Ms. Puja Somani, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan &For Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR

Section 131Section 131(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 68

revising the said assessment order passed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act on the ground of being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In the Consequential proceedings , the assessee was issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 24.10.2013, which was complied with

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Gaurang Alloys and Iron Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1257/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountantmember & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicialmember Assessment Year: 2020-21 Dcit, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata…....………..............................……….……Appellant Vs. Gaurang Alloys & Iron Ltd...………….……………………...……...…..…..Respondent 402A, Mangalam, 24/26, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kol-1.. [Pan: Aaccg1485A] Appearances By: Dr. Anup Biswas, Cit-Dr,Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Jhajharia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order :December 23, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals)-27, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 25.02.2025Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’)For The Ay 2020-21. 2. The Only Issue Raised By The Revenue In This Appeal Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Treating The Undisclosed Cash Sales/Receipts Of Rs.7,54,07,283/- As Business Transaction & Directing The Ao To Apply G.P Rate @ 6.5% To Determine The Profit From The Undisclosed Sales/Receipts.

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

thequantum of unaccounted turnover of Rs 1,77,95,859/- is concerned, the order so passed bythe AO cannot be held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Therefore,the limited issue that remains to be examined is the rate of profit so declared by theassessee on such ... unaccounted turnover which has not examined by the AO which rendersthe assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue andtherefore, to this limited extent, the directions of the Ld. Pr. CIT are sustained and the matteris set-aside to the file of the AO to examine

Indian City Properties Limited, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT, Kolkata - 2, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1051/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: ShriSanjay Chatterjee, ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bhashyam, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55A

issued notice u/s.263 of the Act giving show cause as to why the assessment should not be revised on the ground of being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue to the assessee company on 13.09.2022 , which was replied by the assessee. Ld. Pr.CIT after taking into consideration

Sunita Khandelwal, Mumbai vs. PCIT-Central -1, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3541/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta – CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

PCIT called for and examined the assessment records and while doing so, he was of the view that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Hence, the assessment order is required to be revised in exercise of power conferred ... show cause notice nor in the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act, ld. PCIT has demonstrated how the assessment order is either erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. He submitted, ld. PCIT has not indicated even a single transaction involving the assessee leading to loss