← 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

Vipul M Shah (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO -17(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1030/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhvipul M Shah (Huf) Vs. The Ito 17(3)(5) 404, Commerce House, Mumbai 140, N.M. Road, Fort, Maharashtra – 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aabhv3153Q Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Vimal Punamiya Respondent By : Gotimukul Santosh Kumar Date Of Hearing 20.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.10.2023

For Appellant: Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Gotimukul Santosh Kumar
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 68

make any adverse observation in the assessment order. Merely non discussion of the issue in the order nowhere make the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In response to the enquiry during asst. proceedings, the assessee vide letter dt. 21.11.2016 submitted the details ... submitted by the assessee before the AO. There is nothing on record in which circumstances, the order dated 29.11.2016 can be branded as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It is mandatory on the part of the commissioner to arrive at this conclusion that the order dated

Jt.CIT (OSD), Central Circle-18, New Delhi vs. Delhivery P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.1734/Del/2023 is partly allowed and ITA

ITA 1735/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. C.N. Prasad

Section 263Section 37(1)

that the AO has failed to disallow above mentioned interest expenditure while passing the order u/s 143(3) and hence rendering the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The order of the Id. PCIT u/s 263 is upheld on this issue.” 11. For similar reasons the disallowances

Jt.CIT (OSD), Central Circle-18, New Delhi vs. Delhivery P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.1734/Del/2023 is partly allowed and ITA

ITA 1734/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. C.N. Prasad

Section 263Section 37(1)

that the AO has failed to disallow above mentioned interest expenditure while passing the order u/s 143(3) and hence rendering the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The order of the Id. PCIT u/s 263 is upheld on this issue.” 11. For similar reasons the disallowances

Shree Mayor, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 800/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Shree Mayor, Principal Cit, B-261, Greater Kailash, Delhi-15, Vs. Part-1, New Delhi. New Delhi (Pan:Aotpk9366A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

examined the assessment records of the assessee and while doing so, he was of the view that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue for the following reasons: i) The Assessing Officer has not examined assessee’s claim of expenditure incurred in construction ... show cause notice purportedly under Section 263 of the Act directing the assessee to explain as to why the assessment order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue or should not be set aside. In response to the show cause 3 - AY: 2015-16 notice, the assessee

M/S. Radhe Exim Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 75/RJT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.75/Rjt/2021 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Year: 2016-2017 M/S. Radhe Exim Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Plot No.G-557, Vs. Of Income-Tax-1, Gidc Metoda, Rajkot. Kalawad Road, Metoda, Rajkot-360021. Pan: Aadcr1763P

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

raised by the assessee is that the learned PCIT erred in holding the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act as erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of revenue under the provisions of section 263 of the Act. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee ... accepted the return income without properly examining this aspect. Thus, the learned PCIT proposed to hold the assessment order of the AO as erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of Revenue by issuing show cause notice dated 23-12-2020. 5. The assessee in response to show cause notice submitted

Hi-Shine Inks Pvt. Ltd., Na vs. Arivs.the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 358/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.358/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Hi-Shine Inks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit, 208, Gidc Estate, Antalia, Valsad Tal: Gandevi, Dist: Navsari – 396325. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacu2926J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, Ca Respondent By Shri S. M. Keshkamat, Cit(Dr) 14/09/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 16/10/2023

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

assessee are as follows: “1. The learned Pr.CIT, Valsad erred in passing an order u/s 263, when the jurisdictional conditions of “erroneous” nor “prejudicial to the interest of the revenue” with respect to the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act by the learned ... erred in invoking powers under section 263 and passing order holding the assessment order to be ITA No.358/SRT/2023/AY.2018-19 Hi-Shine Inks Pvt. Ltd. “erroneous” and “prejudicial” without even justifying, which of the twining condition described in section 263 is applicable and as to how the order of assessment is “erroneous

The Surat Peoples Co Operative Bank Ltd., Surat vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.278/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Physical Hearing) The Surat People’S Co Operative Vs. The Pcit, Bank Ltd., Surat-1 1, Vasundhara Bhavan, Timliawad, Nanpura, Surat - 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaat2885P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 43B

issue raised by the Ld. PCIT has never been examined by the Assessing Officer, hence order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 14. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submissions put forth on behalf ... already made U/s 43B during the filing of return of income. Therefore, we note that order passed by the assessing officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 15. Let us take the guidance of judicial precedents laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Malabar

Sureshbhai Manibhai Patel, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 103/SRT/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Sureshbhai Manibhai Patel Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Surat-2, Surat 2Nd Floor, Room At & P.O.Vanskui, Vanskui, Vs. Tal. Mahuva, Dist Surat- No. 227, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, 394240 Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Anbpp 7561 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.M. Jagasheth, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By: Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-D.R

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-D.R
Section 144Section 148Section 263

setting aside the assessment order framed u/s 144 r.w.s.147 of the I.T. Act without pointing out as to how the order is erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue. 6. It is therefore prayed that the above proposed proceedings may please be revoked as learned members of the Tribunal ... Rs.1,70,180/- - Rs.4,016/-) was neither verified nor added to your total income, rendering the assessment order passed to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 3. The undersigned, therefore propose to pass an order u/s 263 of the Act against the assessment order passed

Guala Closures (India) Pvt. Ltd., Panaji vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji., Select City

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 205/PAN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri P.S. Shivshankar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144(3)Section 144CSection 253Section 263Section 4

even though theassessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C dated 30 November 2015 passed by the Assessing Officer was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 4. The Hon'ble Pr. CIT erred in merely setting aside the assessment order to the file of the Assessing ... assessee proposing to pass an appropriate order u/s 263 of the Act, since the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 4. In response to the above, Shri Kamlesh Chainani, CA attended on 20.03.2019 and furnished 5 ITA.No.205/PAN./2019

Divya Prakash, Bhojpur vs. Pr. CIT-1, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 24/PAT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 80C

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. 9 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Divya Prakash (ii) Sec. 263 cannot be invoked

Prabhakar Jha, Madhubani vs. Pr.CIT-1, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 178/PAT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

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

Ellora Inratech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- 3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Mrs. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

assumption of jurisdiction by the Pr.CIT under Section 263 of the Act on the ground that the assessment order under revision is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the I.T.A. No.258/Del/2019 2 revenue. As a corollary, the assessee has sought to impugn the revisional order passed ... ground that the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act was found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 2. That the Ld. Pr. CIT has erred in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act on the ground that

Lalita Sanjivreddy Bodkurwar, Nagpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Nagpur

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 90/NAG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

learned CIT has erred in coming to the conclusion that assessment order passed by learned AO u/s 143(3) dated 27.12.2017 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 ... approver and ignored both his core functions of investigation and adjudication. 6 ITA.No.90/Nag./2020 7. As discussed above, the order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, and the same is set aside. Although the AR has also made submission on the merits

Polygel Industries Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1971/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blepolygel Industries Pvt. Ltd., V. Pcit – Mumbai – 2 321, The Great Eastern Galleria Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Plot No. 20, Sector – 4 Mumbai - 400020 Nerul (West), Navi Mumbai Thane - 400706 Pan: Aaack4105F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi Department Represented By : Shri K.C. Selvamani

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 43B

assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds in its appeal: - “1) The Ld. PCIT erred in considering order of AO being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and setting aside the same. On the facts and circumstances of the case; order is not liable

Shasank Sekhar Nayak, Bhubaneswar vs. Pr.CIT, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 62/CTK/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack10 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.62/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Shasank Sekhar Nayak, Vs Pr.Cit-1, Bhubaneswar Keshari Bhawan, Bindusagar Road Old Town, Bhubaneswar-751002 Pan No. :Abyn 8766 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nihar Ranjan Biswal, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Bhubaneswar-1, Dated 31.12.2021, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021-22/1038327224(1), For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 370 Days. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Filed An Application Along With Affidavit Of The Assessee For Condonation Of The Delay, To Which The Ld. Cit-Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection To Condone The Delay. On Perusal Of The Application & The Affidavit Of The Assessee, We Found That The Delay Occurred Due To Bonafide Reasons. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 370 Days In Filing The Appeal & Appeal Is Disposed Off Finally.

For Appellant: Shri Nihar Ranjan Biswal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

u/s.263 of the Act and set aside the original assessment order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act by holding the same as 3 erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. It was the submission that at the outset the reply filed by the assessee has not been considered ... account payee bank draft, cannot be considered as making the order passed by the ld. AO u/s.143(3) of the Act, erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. This view of ours finds support from the decision of the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case

Shree Sai Consultants, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-12, Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1286/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalepcit- Room No. 808, Kautilya Shree Sai Consultants 1, Ram Krupa Devji Bhimji Lane, Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G Mathurdas Road, Kandivali West, Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400067 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aamfs8806J Assessee By : Shri.Mahaveer Jain.Ar Revenue By : Shri.Dr.Kishore Dhule.Cit.Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2023

For Appellant: Shri.Mahaveer Jain.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Dr.kishore Dhule.CIT.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

PCIT-42 erred in holding that the assessment order dated 22.04.2021 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act by the assessing officer was "erroneous" and "prejudicial to the interest of the revenue" and also erred in partially setting aside the same and directing the Assessing Officer to frame the assessment ... Pr.CIT has considered the findings of AO order U/sec143(3) of the Act and observed that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and is set-aside and issued the directions to the AO observing at Page no. 5 Para

Prathamik Krushi Pattin Shakari Sangh Niyamit, Gokak vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 30/PAN/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji09 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.30/Pan/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Prathamik Krushi Pattin Vs. Pcit (Central), Shakari Sangh Niyamit, Bengaluru Keshapanatti (Earlier Name: Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Sangh Niyamit) Chippalakatti & Co, Chartered 2Nd Accountants, No.44/4, Floor, 16Th Cross, 4Th Main Malleshwaram, Bengaluru. Pan : Aabav1550G Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

Rs.3,15,00,000/-] was not taken for consideration by the AO. The ld. CIT, therefore, held the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue on this score. Setting aside the same, he directed the AO to pass a fresh assessment order after making proper enquiries ... pleadings of the assessee before the AO. In our considered opinion, the ld. CIT was justified in branding the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue on the ground that the AO made addition for Rs.3.15 crores as against the actual receipts of the assessee

Bhushan Kumar Gupta, Haryana vs. Pr, CIT, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1081/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Shri Chandra Mohan Gargbhushan Kumar Gupta Vs. Pr. Cit House No.130, Sector-11, Rohtak Panipat, Haryana -132 103 Pan No. Aatpg 2846 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. Revenue By Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.10.2023

Section 115BSection 263Section 68Section 69

income and taxes were also paid thereon. Finally, the Learned Counsel submitted that the assessment order on debatable issue cannot be alleged as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and therefore, the revisionary order may kindly be quashed. The learned Counsel submitted that the issue is squarely ... under consideration onwards. Therefore, not charging higher rate of interest u/s 115BBE of the Act by the AO has made the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Therefore, the learned PCIT rightly invoked revisionary provision of Section 263 of the Act. 5. On careful consideration

Dilip Talakshi Vora, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax-20, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1613/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdilip Talakshi Vora Vs. Principal Commissioner 3102, Spring Mills, Island Of Income Tax-20, City Centre, G.D. Room No. 418, 4 Th Floor, Ambekar Marg Near Piramal Chambers, Wadala Telephone Lal Baug, Parel, Exchange, Dadar (East) Mumbai - 400012 Mumbai – 400014 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabpv0804C Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Paresh Shaparia Respondent By : Riddhi Mishra Date Of Hearing 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 05.10.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Pr.Cit(A), Mumbai-20, Dated 24.03.2023 For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “I. Order Passed U/S 263 Is Bad In Law: 1. The Ld. Pr.Cit Erred On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case In Passing The Order U/S 263 Which Is Bad In Law. 2. The Ld Pr.Cit Erred In Passing The Order U/S 263 By Setting Aside Ao'S Order & Directing To Inquire Into The Claim Both In Terms Of Section 56(2)(X) & Section 43Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Ld Pr. Cit Erred In Treating The Order Passed By Ao. U/S 143(3) As Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue In Relation To Purchase Of Property I.E Flat No. E-601 At Ambe Shraddha Kamothe In Panvel (Herein Referred As Said Flat) For Applicability Of Section 56(2)(X) & Section 43Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Paresh ShapariaFor Respondent: Riddhi Mishra
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43CSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Ld Pr. CIT erred in treating the order passed by AO. u/s 143(3) as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in relation to purchase of property i.e Flat no. E-601 at Ambe Shraddha Kamothe in Panvel (herein referred ... mind passed the order u/s 143(3). 5. The Ld. Pr CIT ought not to have treated order passed u/s 143(3) as erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 6. The order passed u/s 263 is bad in law and requires to be quashed II. PROVISION OF SECTION

S. M. Steels, Belagavi vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee sands partly allowed

ITA 33/PAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji05 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 69A

penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC should have been initiated and, accordingly, formed an opinion that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of 3 the Revenue in terms of the provisions of section 263 of the Act. Accordingly, the ld. PCIT issued ... show-cause notice dated 18.03.2022 calling upon the assessee to explain as to why the assessment order should not be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The said show-cause notice was sent by e-mail on 22.03.2022. In response to such show-cause notice