← 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

Bharat Jaroli, Neemuch vs. Pr. CIT Ujjain, Ujjain

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 753/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Bharat Jaroli, Pr. Cit, B.No. 45, 1, Kila Road, Ujjain बनाम/ Mahaveer Bagh, Vs. Neemuch (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aanpj5994K Assessee By Shri Anil Khandelwal, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.02.2024

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

circumstances of the case, Ld. Pr. CIT erred in law in passing order u/s 263 setting aside assessment for A.Y. 2014-15 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. Pr. CIT erred ... Thus, the Ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee has submitted that the order passed by the AO is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue, when the assessee has explained all the facts relevant to the transaction and genuineness of the transaction and payment of cash

Ashlar Building Solutions India Pvt Ltd, Vizianagaram vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Visakhapatanam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 158/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

under the powers vested as per the provisions of section 263 of the Act, considered the order of the Ld. AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The main contention of the Ld. Pr. CIT is that the assessee has claimed an expenditure

Malleswara Rao Alamuri (Late), Rep by Wife and L/R Alamuri Lakshmi, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 123/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 123/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) (Late) Malleswara Rao Alumuri, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Rep. By Wife & L/R Alamuri Ward-1(1), Lakshmi, Vijayawada. D.No. 10-14/2-32, Akulavari Street, Mallikharjunapet, One Town, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh – 520001. Pan: Aldpa 7438 G (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

correct in setting aside the order passed U/s. 143(3) inasmuch as such order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of Revenue, in this view of the matter, the order passed U/s. 263 of the Act is liable to be set-aside. 4. For these and other grounds ... accordance with law inasmuch as the order passed by the Ld. AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Ld. AO while passing the assessment order has considered the submissions of the Legal Representative of the assessee

Roop Kumar Chopra, Jaipur vs. PCIT Jaipur 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 264/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Him By The Assessee In Compliance To The Notice Notices Issued To Him U/S 142(1) As Well As U/S 143(2) Of The Act By The Ao As Erroneous In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue For The Purpose Of Section 263 Of The Act & Consequently Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed Dated 01-01-2021 To Be Made Afresh Made Is Most Arbitrarily, Unjust, Untenable & Liable To Be Vacated.’’

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

application of mind and on proper consideration of the material available on record, the order passed by AO can neither said to be erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Therefore, the order of Ld. CIT passed u/s 263 of the Act cannot be sustained. CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto ... possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the Revenue, unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law. Antala Sanjay kumarRavjibhai v. CIT [2012] 135 ITD 506 (Rajkot

M/S Trident Group Limited, Chandigarh vs. Pr.CIT-1, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 307/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./Ita No 307/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S Trident Group Ltd., Vs The Pr.Cit, Sco 20-21, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aaecm1012H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca & Shri Aditya Kumar, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14.02.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2024 आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (In Short ‘The Ld.Pcit’) Dated 27.03.2023 U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) Pertaining To 2018-19 Assessment Year.

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA and Shri Aditya Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 263

earned any exempt income. The ld. PCIT further observed in para 7 of the impugned order that assessment order was prima-facie erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue as the order has been passed without applying the formula of disallowing interest payment proportionate to those applicable

M/S V-Con Integrated Solutions Private Limited, Mohali vs. The PCIT, Chandigarh-1

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 232/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./Ita No 232/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S V-Con Integrated Solutions Pvt.Ltd., Vs The Pcit, Plot F-141, Phase-8B, Mohali, Chandigarh-1. Rupnagar. "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aabci9928H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14.02.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 80J

transactions. 4. The ld. PCIT show caused the assessee on the above issues as to why the assessment order be not held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for lack of adequate enquiries made by the AO. 5. In reply to the show cause, the assessee ... satisfied with the aforesaid submissions of the assessee and held that the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue as the AO has failed to make enquiries and verifications which should have been made by him. He, accordingly

Halmira Estate Tea Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

ITA 382/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 382/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Halmira Estate Tea Private Limited Principal Commissioner Of 23, Pankaj Mullick Sarani Vs Income Tax (2), Kolkata Ballygunge Circular Road Kolkata - 700019 [Pan : Aaach6210N] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.J. Bhide, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 2, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Dt. 10/06/2020, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That On The Facts Of The Case The Order Passed By Pcit(2) Kolkata On 10.06.2020 U/S Of The Act, Is Bad In Law. 2. That The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer On 10.11.2017 U/S. 143(3) After Due Consideration Of Documents Submitted By The Appellant Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Revenue & Therefore The Order Appealed Against Be Cancelled.”

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Bhide, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer on 10.11.2017 u/s. 143(3) after due consideration of documents submitted by the Appellant was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and therefore the order appealed against be cancelled.” 2 I.T.A. No. 382/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Halmira Estate ... Assessing Officer. However, the ld. Pr. CIT was not satisfied and he held the order of the ld. Assessing Officer as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue for not examining the transaction of purchase of property and directed the Assessing Officer to pass fresh assessment order after

Bajaj Housing Finance Limited, Pune vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 564/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.564/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Bajaj Housing Finance Limited, The Principal 3Rd Floor, Panchsil Tech Park, V Commissioner Of Income Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014. S Tax-3, Pune. Pan: Aadcb6018P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala & Ms.Vasanti B.Patel – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Passed By Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-3 On 14.03.2023. In This Case, Assessment Order Was Passed On 26.02.2021. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : 1. Ground I: Challenging The Validity Of Revision Proceedings Under Section 263 Of The Act 1.1. The Learned Pcit Failed To Appreciate That The Assessment Order Passed By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 8, Pune (Hereinafter Referred To As Learned Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Bajaj Housing Finance Limited [A]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

Circle 8, Pune (hereinafter referred to as learned AO) under section 143(3) of the Act Bajaj Housing Finance Limited [A] was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and thus, the order under section 263 of the Act is without jurisdiction ... assessee, without making proper inquiries into the nature of the claim, making the assessment order passed by the AO, prima facie, as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2.1 The ld.Pr.CIT discussed that “Standard Asset” has been defined to be an asset in respect of which there

Kmb Estates LLP, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore - 1, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 749/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna N. Urala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

Income Tax, Bengaluru-1, without any material on record erred in holding that the assessment order for the subject assessment year is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Page 2 of 5 3) The Hon'ble Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-1, exceeded powers vested ... Income Tax, Bengaluru-1, ought to have appreciated that the issues which have reached finality cannot be reopened under the garb of erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 5) The Appellant craves for leave to add to, delete from or amend the grounds of appeal

Ratna Mathur, Delhi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1522/DEL/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Ratna Mathur, Vs Pr.Cit, M-22, Malviya Nagar, Noida. New Delhi-110017. Pan-Abdpm8120F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.B.Mathur, Ca Respondent By Shri Amitabh Kumar Sinha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 23.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23.02.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm By Way Of This Present Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Passed By Ld. Pr. Cit, Noida Dated 29.03.2022 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263

PCIT under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 setting aside the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue is without jurisdiction, bad in law and void ab-initio. (2) That on the facts and circumstances ... that for invoking the provision of section 263 of the Act, twin conditions are required to be satisfied i.e. that order should be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. If AO adopts one of the plausible views, in that event, no prejudice would be caused

Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Cer-1, Kolkata.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1274/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos. 1274/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,.......................Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan: Aaacv9131E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central-1, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107 -A N D- I.T.A. Nos. 1232/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,.......................Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan: Aaacv9131E] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 4

proceedings and 2. passed an order u/s 263 dated 28.03.2022 against the said assessment order 143(3)/147 considering the same as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. That your petitioner approached its regular tax consultant to 3. seek advice on receipt of order passed under section ... judge the action of CIT taken under section 263. (i) The CIT must record satisfaction that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Both the conditions must be fulfilled. ITA Nos. 1274 & 1232/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) Vrinda Engineers

Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, C.C-1(1), Kolkata.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1232/KOL/2023[AAACV9131E]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos. 1274/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,.......................Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan: Aaacv9131E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central-1, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107 -A N D- I.T.A. Nos. 1232/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,.......................Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan: Aaacv9131E] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 4

proceedings and 2. passed an order u/s 263 dated 28.03.2022 against the said assessment order 143(3)/147 considering the same as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. That your petitioner approached its regular tax consultant to 3. seek advice on receipt of order passed under section ... judge the action of CIT taken under section 263. (i) The CIT must record satisfaction that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Both the conditions must be fulfilled. ITA Nos. 1274 & 1232/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) Vrinda Engineers

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 500/JPR/2023[215-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

which were as per the judicial pronouncements. It was held that Commissioner taking a different view and branding the order of the AO erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue was not justified. (g) In the instant case assessee was undisputedly entitled for deduction u/s.80IB(10) in respect ... views are possible and the AO has taken one view, with which the CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order, prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. (h) ITAT Mumbai Bench in case of Frigsales (India) Ltd., (supra) held that a receipt which

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. National Faceless Assessment Assessment Centre, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Ajmer

ITA 497/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2017-18
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Deputy Commissionerof Income Tax, Circle -2, Ajmer

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

ITA 496/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

which were as per the judicial pronouncements. It was held that Commissioner taking a different view and branding the order of the AO erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue was not justified. (g) In the instant case assessee was undisputedly entitled for deduction u/s.80IB(10) in respect ... views are possible and the AO has taken one view, with which the CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order, prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. (h) ITAT Mumbai Bench in case of Frigsales (India) Ltd., (supra) held that a receipt which

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer vs. Shree Cement Ltd, Beawar

ITA 490/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2016-17
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

ITA Nos. 489 to 492/JP/2023 ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. 2 These are eight cross appeals filed by the revenue

Shree Society, Visakhapatnam vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 271/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.271/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Shree Society Vs. Income Tax Officer 26-9-28, Wood Yard Street Ward-1(5) Near Reading Room Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aanas1911Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I Kama Sastry, AR)For Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

income u/s.2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the I.T.Act, 1961, which the AO omitted to do so, making the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly, vide show cause notice dated 05.03.2022, the assessee was asked to show-cause as to why the assessment ... fact that the Ld.PCIT treated the assessment order passed by the AO (ITO, Ward-1(5), Visakhapatnam) u/s 143(3) dated 02.12.2019 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and accordingly set aside the assessment to the file of the AO(ITO, Ward-1(1) to pass

Kotari Srinivasa Rao, Undrajavaram Mandalam vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajahmundry

In the result, additional ground raised is allowed

ITA 335/VIZ/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.335/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Kotari Srinivasa Rao Vs. Principal Commissioner Of D.No.1-91, Canal Road Income Tax Velivennu Rajahmundry Undrajavaram Mandal West Godavari Dist. [Pan : Apjpk9870N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

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

administrative procedure. The Ld.AO has recommended initiation of 263 proceedings and based on the information, the Ld.PCIT opined that the assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and initiated 263 proceedings, therefore, he pleaded that the orders passed u/s 263 be upheld. 7. We have heard ... Ld.PCIT for revision of the case u/s 263 of the Act, if he considers that the order passed by the Ld.AO is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. But, in this case on hand, revision u/s 263 was initiated solely on the recommendations

Manuj Jain HUF, Ludhiana vs. PCIT -1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 392/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 263Section 263(1)

assessee during the course of assessment proceedings and AO has taken a permissible view. The order passes by the AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue, hence the order of PCIT should be set aside. 3. The Ld. PCIT has revised the order ... carried out by the AO, and in such cases, it is important that for holding the order so passed by the AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, certain further verification and inquiries should have been conducted by the Ld. Pr. CIT which has not happened

Kgvk Agro Limited, Kolkata vs. PCIT, Kolkata-2., Kolkata

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

ITA 549/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 549/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Kgvk Agro Limited,..................................Appellant Block-A, 3Rd Floor, Flat-3, 46B, Sridhar Roy Road, Kolkata-700039 [Pan: Aaacu9032H] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Kolkata-2, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Anuj Masaddi, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 25, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 19, 2024

Section 115BSection 2Section 263Section 68

issued a notice under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. After hearing the assessee, ld. Commissioner held that assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. He set aside the assessment order and relegated the issue to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for verification ... judge the action of CIT taken under section 263. (i) The CIT must record satisfaction that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Both the conditions must be fulfilled. (ii) Sec. 263 cannot be invoked to correct each and every type