← 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

Satara Zilla Gramsevak Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit, Satara vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -3, Pune

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1446/PUN/2023[20018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri G.D.Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1446/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Satara Zilla Gramsevak Sahakari The Pcit-3, Pune. Patpedhi Maryadit, Vs 161/B/4, Zilla Gramsevak . Bhavan, Shahunagar, Satara – 415001. Pan: Aacas8773K Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari – Dr Date Of Hearing 18/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2024

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

analogy that the order passed u/s 154 r.w.s.143(3) of the ITA, 1961 dated 26/03/2021 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2. The learned PCIT-3, Pune erred in law and on facts in directing the learned AO to frame the assessment 'de novo' instead ... were duly verified by the learned AO. As such the order u/s 143(3) of the ITA, 1961 is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 4. The learned PCIT-3, Pune erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that various courts have held that

Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3468/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2024AY 2009-10
Section 100Section 263Section 48

consciously, advisedly and upon application of mind. b) The CIT further erred in treating the Assessment Order dated 9 May 2013 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, based upon a different opinion formed by him. c) The CIT failed to confirm, though raised by the appellant ... dated 09/12/2013 on the same very issue. In his show-cause notice, he has observed that order passed by the Id. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue in view of the following reasons:- i) The Assessing Officer has failed to take into account the fact

Shamdarshan Properties Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2777/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154

material on record. The Ld. AR contentions are that the order passed by the AO does not satisfy the twin conditions being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Ld. AR also submitted that the Pr. CIT is of the opinion that AO has not conducted enquiry

Ambicaa Sales Corporation, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Bengaluru - 5, Bengaluru

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

ITA 726/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Balram R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43

accepted the returned income and completed the assessment. 5. Later on, the ld. Pr.CIT noticed that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and issued show cause notice to the assessee on 19.02.2019 u/s. 263 of the Act, which ... price fluctuation is to be examined by the AO. The ld. Pr.CIT held that the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue since the AO has allowed the speculative loss and directed the AO for de novo assessment by considering section

Pankaj Madhusudan Trivedi, Vadodara vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vadodara-1, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 230/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(2)Section 40

investigating the issue, merely directed the AO to frame the assessment order afresh. Without there being any positive finding about order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, the action of Ld. PCIT is without jurisdiction and illegal and hence deserves to be deleted. 6. Ld. PCIT ... under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, and hence the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 5. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. PCIT holding the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial

M/S. Vysali Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ernakulam vs. The PCIT, Kochi-1, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 847/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasvysali Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The Principal Commissioner Ix/639, Edathala P.O. Of Income Tax -1 Vs. Ernakulam 683561 C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road [Pan:Aaacv 5491P] Kochi - 682018 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Narayanan P. Potty, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.01.2024 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Appeal By The Assessee Agitates The Revision Of It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 30/10/2019 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Kochi (Pr. Cit) Vide Order Under Section 263 Of The Act Dated 30.03.2022. 2. The 68-Day Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Explained By An Affidavit Dated 14.7.2023 By Shri A.D. Krishnan, Managing Director Of The Assessee-Company. We Find The Reasons Stated Therein As Genuine & Debilitative Of The Assessee’S Capacity In Filing The Appeal In Time. The Appeal Was Accordingly Admitted & The Hearing Proceeded With.

For Appellant: Shri Narayanan P. Potty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 269SSection 36(1)(va)Section 44A

depreciation, which as per the audit report u/s.44AB of the Act, is at Rs.96.50 lakhs. The assessment, in view of the foregoing, was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue and, accordingly, set aside by the revisionary authority for a de novo consideration per a fresh, speaking order. Aggrieved ... parties, and perused the material on record. 5.1 That lack of enquiry would by itself result in the ensuing assessment as being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, liable for revision, is trite law, toward which the ld. Pr. CIT cites Malabar Industrial

Play Games24X7 Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Mumbai

ITA 1631/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jeet KamdarFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani
Section 263

Vide order dated 31/03/2019 passed under section 263 of the Act, the learned PCIT came to the conclusion that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue on the basis that the AO failed to conduct enquiries and verification as to why the payments made

Venerable Advertising Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Kol-1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 459/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.459/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Venerable Advertising Pvt. Ltd....................…...……………....Appellant 6, Kali Krishna Tagore Street, Jorbagan, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aaacv8673M] Vs. Pcit, Kolkata-1, Kolkata…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Aayush Kedia, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Datta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 30, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 14.03.2023 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pcit’] U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Pr. Cit In Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act & Thereby Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame The Assessment Afresh. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Vide Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration I.E. A.Y 2018-19 Declared Total Income Of Rs.1,09,24,210/- Which Was Accepted By The Assessing Officer In The Assessment Carried Out U/S 143(3) Of The Act. However, Later On, The Ld. Pr. Cit In Exercising Of His Revision

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 94(7)

required enquires.” 3. The ld. Pr. CIT relying upon certain case laws held that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. He, therefore, set aside the assessment order for de novo assessment. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order ... said words suggest that the enquiries which are necessary to form a view as to whether the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue or not? A perusal of the impugned order of the ld. Pr. CIT reveals that

Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited, Thrissur vs. DCIT Circle 1(1) & Tps Thrissur, Thrissur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 628/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Daskerala State Financial Dy. Cit, Circle - 1(1) & Tps Enterprises Ltd. Thrissur Bhadratha, Museum Road Vs. Chembukkavu - 680020 Thrissur [Pan:Aabct3817A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Harikrishnanunny, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 40

Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC), is one of the ingredients that renders an order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Absence or lack of enquiry is an attribute, a manifestation, of this non-application, so that an order

Jagdish Kumar, Haryana vs. Ward-1, Hissar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 727/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Jagdish Kumar, Vs Pr. Cit, H. No.570/20, Durga Colony, Rohtak, Hansi Distt., Haryana. Hisar, Haryana. Pan: Aizpk3090M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Waseem Arshad, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Is Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.02.2022 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Pcit) In Revision No.Pcit, Rohtak/Revision No.263/100000313559 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Ito, Ward-5, Hissar (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). 2. Heard & Perused The Record. None Appeared For The Assessee At The Time Of Hearing & The Notices Issued By Registered Covers Are Received Back With The Report Of Incomplete Address. We Have Gone Through The Record & Find That The Address As Provided By The Assessee & As Mentioned In The Assessment Orders & The Pcit Order Stand Mentioned On The Notices. The Bench Clerk Has Also Informed That Earlier A Request Was Received From The Assessee On Which A Phone Number Was Mentioned & Even On That Phone Number The Assessee/Appellant Has Been Informed. No More Opportunity Is Justified. The Ld. Dr Was Heard Who Supported The Order Of The Ld. Pcit.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)

heard who supported the order of the ld. PCIT. 3. It comes up that the ld.PCIT had found the order of ld. AO erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for the reason that without taking cognizance of the CBDT Instructions, the order was passed. The issue revolves

M/S. Harsiddh Quarry Works, Aravalli vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 103/AHD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.103/Ahd/2022 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 M/S. Harsiddh Quarry Works, Principal Commissioner Of At Alva (Vatrak), Vs. Income Tax, Taluka Bayad, Ahmedabad. District Aravalli, Alva(Vaarak)-383325. Pan: Aaifh0303H

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 69

certainly cannot be considered in the re-assessment proceedings. In our view, if at all, any order which can be considered to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue for non consideration of the issues raised by learned PCIT, certainly, it has to be the original assessment order

Shri Sandeep Jagdishchandra Dave, Ahmedabad vs. Teh Pr. CIT -3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 176/AHD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Dipen Shukhadia, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 197Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

Income tax erred in observing that the Assessing officer has passed an order u/s 143(3) without proper verification and it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. None of the issue raised by Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income tax has been unverified by A.O. and/or prejudicial ... which he failed to do. Accordingly, in view of the above reasons, the PCIT held that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and accordingly, the assessment order was set-aside for de-novo consideration. The assessee is in appeal before us against

M/S Ayush Ajay Construction Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. The DCIT Central-(1), Indore

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 174/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 Ayushajay Construction Pr.Cit-1, Private Limited, Indore. बनाम/ 3/3, South Tukoganj, Vs. Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aacca 5523 B Assessee By Shri Prakash Jain & Ms. Shreya Jain, Cas Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.01.2024

Section 143(3)Section 263

order dated 26.02.2021 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi for A.Y. 2018-19 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. (3) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Pr. CIT erred ... section 263 has been amended and Explanation 2, as reproduced below, had been introduced therein, therefore the assessment-order is deemed to be erroneous-cum-prejudicial to the interest of revenue if the same had been passed without inquiries or verification which should have been made: “Explanation

M/S. Moodbidri Co-Operative Service Bank Limited, Moodbidri vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji-Goa Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Mangaluru

ITA 930/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Moodbidri Co-Operative Service Vs. Ito, Bank Ltd., Ward –2(1), Door No.192, Main Road, Mangaluru. Moodbidri – 574 227. Pan : Aabam 7065 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57Section 80P

learned P.C.I.T. is not justified in holding that the order of assessment passed u/s. 143[3] of the Act, dated 15/06/2021 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue on the ground that the same was not passed in accordance with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

Comstar Mauritius Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT (It) Mumbai-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1529/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Comstar Mauritius Limited Cit (It), Agarwal Vijay & Associates, 503, 17Th Floor, Air India Building, Jolly Bhavan, No.1, New Marine Vs. Nariman Point, Lines, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagcc1225Q

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

sold in AY 2018-19 earning capital gain claimed as not chargeable to tax in India , accepted by ld AO, held to be erroneous and Prejudicial to revenue order , hence revised. 03. The assessee is aggrieved and has raised following grounds of appeal:- “The following grounds of appeal are without ... Commissioner of Income Tax, International Tax, Mumbai 2 failed to appreciate that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) on 01.03.2021 was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax, International Tax, Mumbai 2 failed to appreciate that the learned Assessing

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

order. Revisionary Proceedings 4.1 In the meanwhile, Ld. Pr. CIT, vide impugned order dated 21.06.2023, held that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the assessee and show-caused the assessee on revision of assessment. The Ld. Pr. CIT observed that the details pertaining to cash ... assesseing the income for which reassessment was initiated and assessing on some other heads of income, has rendered the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the 5 revenue. Therefore, the assessment was to be revised to remedy the said error. Accordingly, the assessment was set aside

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

issue of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia), did not consider the issue of disallowance of donation and CSR expenses which make the order erroneous and prejudicial to the 4 interest of the revenue. Accordingly, the assessee was show-caused as per the requirements of Sec.263. 4.2 The assessee submitted that

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

learned P.C.I.T. is not justified in holding that the order of assessment passed u/s. 143[3] of the Act, dated 19/04/2021 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue on the ground that M/s. Pane Mangalore RSS Bank, Bantwal Page 2 of 5 the same was not passed ... question of allowance of any deduction in the assessment order passed does not arise for the same to be labelled as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of revenue and therefore, the impugned order passed u/s. 263 of the Act directing the disallowance of deduction is contrary

Simbhaoli Power Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT Central, Kanpur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 505/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Anshul Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Gupta, CIT- DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

powers u/s 263 of the Act can be exercised by the Commissioner on satisfaction of twin conditions, i.e., the assessment order should be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. By 'erroneous' is meant contrary to law. Thus, this power cannot be exercised unless the Commissioner is able ... establish that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Thus, where there are two possible views and the Assessing Officer has taken one of the possible views, no action to exercise powers of revision can arise, nor can revisional power

Simbhaoli Power Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT Ghaziabad, New Delhi

ITA 4620/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Anshul Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Gupta, CIT- DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 69C

your case holding that the assessment order passed by the ACIT, Circle-3(1), BSR in your case for A.Y. 14-15 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. For this purpose you are hereby required to appear before me in my office at Room ... powers u/s 263 of the Act can be exercised by the Commissioner on satisfaction of twin conditions, i.e., the assessment order should be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. By 'erroneous' is meant contrary to law. Thus, this power cannot be exercised unless the Commissioner is able