← 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

M/S Concrete Developers, Nagpur vs. ACIT, C(C)-2(2), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 248/NAG/2018[2009-10]Status: FixedITAT Nagpur30 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act and held the assessment order dated 21-12-2010 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 3. On perusal of the record, we note that the above said assessment was reopened

Shree Hemant Shankarrao Jadhao, Amravati vs. Pr. CIT, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 22/NAG/2018[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Oct 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya
Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

justified. 4. We note on perusal of impugned order, that the Pr. CIT held the assessment order dated 27-03-2015 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue on the ground that the AO failed to look into the certain issues. According to the Pr. CIT that

Sewa Sahkari Sammittee Maryadit, Beed, Mundi Khandwa vs. PCIT-1, Indore

In the result, appeal by the assesse is allowed

ITA 44/IND/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisewa Sahkari Sammittee Pr. Cit-2 Maryadit Beed Indore Vs. Beed Mundi Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaufs0703N Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2023

Section 12ASection 138Section 143(3)Section 263

without looking into factum that The assessment order was framed u/s 143(3) after making due enquiry and was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3. That The Ld. PCIT has erred in law and on facts in holding that the sufficient inquiries were not made ... examines and verifies the transactions under question by himself and arrives at a finding on merits that the concerned order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. However, in the instant case, the LD PCIT has at the foremost, failed to even examine and verify whether the interest

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

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

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

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

For Appellant: Jehangir Mistri Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Srinivasu

subsequent assessment year. Hence, the order passed by the AO is in accordance with law and cannot be considered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 15. In this respect, our attention was invited to the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case ... enquiries but has examined and considered various details submitted during the course of assessment. Hence, the order passed by the AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue i.e. involving any error or it is deviating from law. (as defined in Black's Law Dictionary). Since

Rajendra G Mishra, Nagpur vs. Pr. CIT-2, Nagpur

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 94/NAG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263(1)Section 54

erred in coming to the conclusion that assessment 2 ITA.No.94/Nag./2020 order passed by learned AO u/s 143(3) dated 07.11.2017 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and in setting aside the assessment order with a direction to the learned AO to conduct proper enquiry ... facts as emerged out in the present ease, I am of the considered view that above order u/s.143(3) dated 07.11.2017 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and therefore is set-aside. The AO is directed to pass the Order afresh after proper enquiry and after

Himanshu Goyal, Dhamtari vs. Pr. CIT-1, Raipur

In the result legal grounds raised by the assessee under present appeal is allowed

ITA 144/RPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.144/Rpr/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-2013) Himanshu Goyal, Vs Pr.Cit, Raipur-1, Raipur Nawagaon Road, Dhamtari, 793773, (C.G.) Pan No. :Agtpg1746Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Praveen Khandelwal & Praveen Goyal, Cas राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Praveen KhandelwalFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 263

issues and also non-application of mind for reaching any conclusion which would lead to hold the assessment order passed by the AO erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, the ld. Pr.CIT set aside the assessment order to frame the assessment afresh. 6. Against the above order ... during the assessment 16 proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act and, therefore, the order passed by the ld AO dated 26.12.2019 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 12. Now, the question before us is as to whether in a case where the income escaped according

Rajesh Jain, Tikamgarh vs. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax Gwalior, Gwalior

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 48/JAB/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajesh Jain, The Pcit, Gwalior, Prop. M/S Gyan Tube Wells, Aayakar Bhavan City Centre Mau Chungi Road, Vs. Gwalior, M.P.472001. Tikamgarh-472001. Pan No. Aoqoj 4456 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Abhijeet Shrivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Saad Kidwani, CIT-DR
Section 263

Assessing Officer was not assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was not assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was not erroneous and prejudicial erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.  The learned Commissioner of Income Tax was not justified The learned Commissioner of Income ... after detailed verification and therefore assessment was not erroneous verification and therefore assessment was not erroneous verification and therefore assessment was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.  The learned Commissioner of Income Tax did not appreciate The learned Commissioner

Hindustan Epc Company Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 11(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 7112/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshhindustan Epc Company Ltd, Vs. Acit, 239, Okhla Industrial Estate, Circle-11(2), Phase-Iii, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aafcm9606E Acit, Vs. Hindustan Epc Company Ltd, Circle-11(2), 239, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aafcm9606E

For Appellant: Sh. Satyen Sethi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

payee. In our considered opinion, the ld. CIT erred in invoking Explanation 2 to section 195(1) for treating the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue on account of non deduction of tax at source from the commission payment to the non-resident

ACIT, Circle- 11(2), New Delhi vs. Hindustan Epc Company Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 6985/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshhindustan Epc Company Ltd, Vs. Acit, 239, Okhla Industrial Estate, Circle-11(2), Phase-Iii, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aafcm9606E Acit, Vs. Hindustan Epc Company Ltd, Circle-11(2), 239, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aafcm9606E

For Appellant: Sh. Satyen Sethi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

payee. In our considered opinion, the ld. CIT erred in invoking Explanation 2 to section 195(1) for treating the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue on account of non deduction of tax at source from the commission payment to the non-resident

Amarjeet Singh Bhatia, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- 23, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2837/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Us:-

Section 143(3)Section 263

erred in law in passing the order us 263, more so when the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 4. The Pr. CIT has further erred in law in passing the order u/s 263, without appreciating the facts ... course of assessment proceedings. 6. That without prejudice, the Pr CIT has wrongly and illegally held that the order passed by AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue when no independent enquiry has been made by PCIT. Hence the notice issued

Ashok Aneja, Haryana vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

Accordingly, the grounds raised are sustained. The appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2747/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaashok Aneja Vs. Pr. Cit, House No. 30, Rohtak, Haryana Sukhdev Nagar, Panipat Haryana-132103 Pan : Aaqpa2793Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50C

PCIT decided to proceed and with the following relevant findings in para 3, considered the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest and setting aside the same directed AO to pass a fresh order in accordance with law; “3. I have carefully examined the entire facts ... view of the facts discussed above it is clear that the assessment order passed by the AO is hasty and is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The A.O. should conduct detailed enquiries on the above issues by conducting detailed enquiries and examining the documentary evidence. If required

M/S. Lado Ceramic Pvt. Ltd., Bela (Rangpar), Dist. Morbi vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 72/RJT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

quashed. 4. The learned Pr. CIT erred on facts as also in law in alleging that the order u/s. 143(3) is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as the AO had not made inquiry & verification in terms of provision of Section 68 of the Act in respect ... loans as genuine. M/s. Lado Ceramic Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT Asst.Year –2016-17 Accordingly, the principal CIT set-aside the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, since the same was passed by the Assessing Officer without making necessary and adequate enquiries into the source

M/S. Shri Ramkrishna Transport Company, Porbandar vs. The Pr. CIT-4, Jamnagar

In the result, order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 of the Act is directed to be set-aside

ITA 57/RJT/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the contentions put forth by the assessee and held that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, with the following observations:- “The assessee firm has not disputed the fact that the transport charges ... above.” 4. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. PCIT holding the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 5. At the outset, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the facts of the case and reason

Sudeep Pandya L/H Lla Jayesh Pandeya, Chhindwara vs. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur

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

ITA 36/JAB/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur17 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesudeep Pandya L/H, Vs. Pr.Cit, Smt.Ila Jayesh Centralrevenuebuilding, Pandya, Napier Town, 14-15 Patni Jabalpur-482002, Complex, Madhya Pradesh. Parasiya Road, Chhindwara-480001 Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Ahkpp7408G Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri G.N Purohit.Sr.Adv & Smt.Uma Parashar. Adv.Ar Respondent By : Shri Saad Kidwai.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.10.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit) Jabalpur Passed U/Sec 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Sudeep Pandya L/H Ila Jayesh Pandya Jabalpur. 1 The Learned Pcit Has Erred In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Passing An Order Under Section 263 Against A Dead Person, The Notice Of Hearing Where Issued In The Name Of Deceased & Were Not Served On The Legal Here The Order Passed Under Section 263 Is Illegal Without Jurisdiction & Void Ab-Intio Same Should Be Placed Into Toto.

For Appellant: Shri G.N Purohit.Sr.Adv &For Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai.CIT-DR
Section 10Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 68

perusal of the records and information found that the order passed by the AO under section 143(3) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as the A.O has failed to conduct proper enquiries and observed as under: “2. On perusal of the records ... compliance to the notices issued and dealt on the material on record and observed that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and set aside the order U/sec143(3) of the Act passed on 16-12- 2019 and directed the Assessing

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

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

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

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

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

satisfied with the explanations and submissions of the assessee and is of the opinion that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, and accordingly set aside the assessement order passed U/sec 143(3) of the Act dated ... ITAT, Mumbai has held that the order of the AO passed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue warranting revision u/s 263 of the Act. Accordingly, the Hon'ble ITAT has quashed the order passed u/s.263

Ajay Kumar, Patna vs. Pr. CIT-1, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 29/PAT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

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 ... hand, ld. Commissioner has not recorded any finding on the details submitted by the assessee, rather simply observed that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. There is no specific finding at the end of the ld. Commissioner demonstrating as to how the order

Ametek Buildtech India Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT - 1, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1317/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI G.S PANNU, HON’BLE (President), SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: None
Section 133(6)Section 263

advances are genuine transaction. After submitting said contentions the assessee before the ld. PCIT finally submitted that the assessment order cannot alleged as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. However, not being agreed with the stand of assessee the ld. PCIT invoke the provision of section ... accepted assessee’s explanation 2 without making any inquiry of verification of fact therefore it was rightly alleged that the assessee order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The ld. CIT(DR) submitted that accordingly, as per mandate of explanation 2 to section

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

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

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

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

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

Income Tax—Raipur-1 has erred in holding the assessment order passed by the National e-assessment Centre (NEAC) on 01.03.2021 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as the order was passed without making any enquiry on the issues of applicability of section ... assessment order passed by the NEAC is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue and therefore the order u/s 263 passed by the Ld. CIT is unjustified, unwarranted, and uncalled. 2. The assessee reserves the right to add, amend or alter any grounds of appeal at any time

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

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

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

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

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

dated 27.12.2019. The ground of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: 1. The assessment order passed by AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Ld. Pr. CIT erred in invoking the provisions of section 263 and in setting aside the assessment order for fresh ... seen and observed that the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 vide order dated 27.12.2019 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Since the issue discussed supra have not been properly verified by the AO while passing the assessment order by conducting proper

Pravara Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Thane-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 1970/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

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

denied. To this extent, the PCIT was of the view that the order of the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and, therefore, issued a show cause notice to the assessee invoking the provisions of section ... attributable to providing credit facilities to the members. Accordingly, the assessee submitted that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The PCIT did not accept the submissions of the assessee and held that the interest derived from investing