← 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

Laxmi Narayan Agarwal, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2, Income Tax Department

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 296/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

which is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Thus, the order passed U/s 143(3) on 31.12.2018 is held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Limited ... action of ld. PCIT in exercising the Revisionary powers u/s 263 and thereby holding the order passed by ld.AO u/s 143(3) as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue in a scenario when assessee had already settled the disputes for the year under consideration by filing an application

The Tata Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT)-17, Mumbai

ITA 1864/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhima Ramnani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri. Biswanath Das- CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT) has erred in invoking revisionary powers u/s 263 by opining that the Order u/s 143(3) is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 1.2 The Learned PCIT erred in setting aside the Order dated 20/01/2021 passed ... from its surplus fund parked with cooperative banks was not allowable and as such the assessment order passed by the Ld. PCIT is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the Ld. PCIT under section 263 of the Act the assessee company

Sunil Prasad, Chapra vs. Pr. CIT-1, Patna

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

ITA 177/PAT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Rajesh Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271D

proceedings were not initiated u/s 271D of the Act which renders the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 04.07.2019 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Accordingly, Ld. Pr. CIT issued notice u/s 263 of the Act dated 11.01.2022 to the assessee. The assessee ... deposited during the demonetization period. Ld. D/R therefore, submitted that Ld. Pr. CIT has rightly held the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Moreover, with the exercise of revisionary jurisdiction the assessee is not put to any loss or prejudice as the assessee would

Shankar Zethabhai Patel, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.124/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Shankar Zethabhai Patel, Vs. The Pcit(Central), 505, Sraynik Park Appartment, Rander Surat. Road, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Cfepp7235M Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) 15/06/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

erred in passing the order u/s. 263, although the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the I. T. Act, 1961 was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2. On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject ... assessing officer in this regard is enclosed herewith. 6. From the above discussion, it is clear that assessment u/s. 143(3) is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue.” 6. However, the Ld. PCIT rejected the contention of the assessee and held that the assessee has purchased agricultural

Columbus Overseas LLP, 16, Raja Park, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jaipur, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 196/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

case and in law, Ld. PCIT has erred in holding that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dated 12.02.2021 is erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue. However, the details were duly verified by the Ld. AO during the assessment proceedings and the assessment order ... cause noticed dated 17.03.2023 the ld. PCIT based on the material available on record held the order of the AO dated 12.02.2021 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The relevant finding of the PCIT is reproduced here in below : “8. I have perused the order

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Faridabad vs. Btl Holding Ltd.(Btl Investments & Securities Ltd.), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 9115/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.9115/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2007-08 बनाम Acit, Btl Holding Ltd. Central Circle-2, Vs. (Btl Investments & Securities Ltd.) Faridabad, Haryana. Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacn5131E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 153A, it was contended by the Revenue that the impugned order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue since the Assessing Officer had only determined the undisclosed income and not the total income which is the mandate of section

Thane Postal Employees Co- Operative Credit Society Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT-Thane-1, Thane

ITA 1871/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev V. Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

well as deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) and therefore, the order passed by the learned AO was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 1.2 The learned PCIT ignored the fact that the learned AO had taken the only possible legal view in the facts ... assessee under section 80P(2)(d) is not an allowable deduction hence the assessment order (supra) passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and thereby set aside the same to the file of the AO with a direction to disallow the entire amount

Manish Shantilal Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, PCIT, Mumbai

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

ITA 1275/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2023AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Shri. M. S. Mathuria, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Ridhi Mishra, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer, Ne- AC, Delhi treating it erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue and set-aside the same, without appreciating the submission made, law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. provisions of the Act ought ... case without proper and required verification. 5. Consequently the Ld. PCIT held that the assessment order dated 24.02.2021 passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly, the AO was directed to frame the assessment denovo. 6. During the course of appellate proceedings before

Bimal V. Pala Legal Heir of Late Smt. Ranjana Vrajlal Pala, Mumbai vs. ITO 15(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2735/MUM/2016[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2023AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhbimal V Pala Vs. Principal Commissioner (Legal Heir Of Late Smt. Of Income Tax 26 Bkc C/O H.H. Parmar & Co. Bandra East 512, Maker Chambers, V. 221, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Apmpp6636G Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : M.V. Choksi Respondent By : S. Srinivasu Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2023 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. Pcit-26, Mumbai, Dated 16.03.2016 For A.Y. 1996-97. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & Under The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit Erred In Passing Order U/S 263 & Setting Aside The Order Dated 19/03/2014 U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 On The Ground That It Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue. 2. On The Facts & Under The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit Erred In Passing Order U/S 263 Without Taking On Record The Details Submitted & Expecting To Do The Impossible Of Bring On Record The Lost Passport 3. On The Facts & Under The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit Erred In Passing Order U/S 263 Relying On Decision Of P A G E | 2 Bimal V. Pala Vs. Pcit-26 Rampyaridevi Saraogi Vs Cit 67 Itr 84(Sc), Taradevi Aggarwal Vs Cit 88 Itr 323(Sc) & Ramaswamy Chettiyar Vs Cit 220 Itr 657.665(Mad) Which Are Not Relevant To The Appellant. 4. The Appellant Reserves The Right & Alter/Amend Grounds Of Appeal At Any Time Before The Hearing.”

For Appellant: M.V. ChoksiFor Respondent: S. Srinivasu
Section 143(3)Section 263

passing order u/s 263 and setting aside the order dated 19/03/2014 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 on the ground that it was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT erred ... claim of the assessee.” In view of the above the ld. Pr.CIT observed that order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, therefore, a show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act was issued on 15.03.2016 to the assessee. In response vide letter

Shree Navkar Realinfra Private Limited, Bhilwara vs. PCIT, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 133/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of This Appeal.”

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

preceding paras. Hence, assessment order u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act for the A.Y. 2017-18 dated 30.03.2019 has thus been rendered erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue on the issue of non-verification of Large share premium received by the assessee company during the year ... dated 29.12.2020 not invoking explanation 2 to the provision of section 263 and therefore, he has not demonstrated that the order is how erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 7. The ld DR is heard who has relied on the findings of the lower authorities and submitted

Neena Dadwani, Ujjain vs. PCIT-1, Indore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 131/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Neena Dadwani, Pcit-1, 6, Sunshine Tower, Indore. बनाम/ Priyadarshini Square, Ujjain Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abopd0598D Assessee By Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 31.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2023

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

section 263 has been amended and Explanation 2, as reproduced below, had been introduced therein, 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 2 – “For the purpose ... cannot be said to be faulty. Thus, everything hinges on the point as to whether the assessment-order can be said to be erroneous-cum-prejudicial to the interest of revenue merely for the reason that the AO has not discussed those issues in the assessment- order or in other

Trafogura Global Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT-6, Mumbai

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

ITA 1690/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Trafigura Global Services Pvt. Ltd. Pcit-6 501, 5Th Floor, Aaykara Bhawan Unit No. 1101, A-Wing, Plot No. C, 66G Block, One Bkc, Bandra Kurla Vs. M. G. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Complex, Mumbai – 400 051

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Deshmukh
Section 143(3)Section 263

ground that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer ('A.O.' for short) u/s. 143(3) of the Act was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and the assessee has also without prejudice challenged the order of the ld. PCIT on the ground that the legal ... ground that the A.O. has not enquired into the impugned expenditure resulting in the assessment order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The ld. AR relied on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case of Shree Aniruddha Upasana Foundation vs. CIT (Exemption

Sudhir Vrundavandas Valia, Mumbai vs. ACIT-Cir-20(1), Mumbai

ITA 1096/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 80ISection 90

unsustainable. 2. Ld. PCIT has erred in holding that the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 3. Ld. PCIT erred in directing the Assessing Officer to disallow the claim of deduction under section 80IA ... highlighted in the notice issued under Section 263 of the Act in detail during the assessment proceedings; and therefore, assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. However, the PCIT was not convinced and therefore, the PCIT proceeded to set aside the Assessment Order, dated 23/01/2021

M/S. Doit Creations (India) Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr. Comm of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and additional ground of appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1354/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdoit Creations (India) Vs. Principal Commissioner Private Limited Of Income Tax, Central 307 & 308, 3Rd Floor,, Circle 3, Room No. 1901, Midas, Sahar Plaza, 19Th Floor, Air India Andheri (East) Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 069 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcd8695A Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Dharan Gandhi Respondent By : Neena Jeph Date Of Hearing 27.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 23.07.2023 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. Pcit(Central), Mumbai -3, Dated 31.03.2022 For A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon'Ble Pr.Cit Central - 3 (Herein After Referred As 'Pcit) Erred In Invoking Provisions Of Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As 'The Act') By Issuing The Notice Inspite Of The Fact That Assessment U/S. 143(3) & U/S 143(3) R.Ws 147 Of The Act Has Been Completed After Due Examination & Application Of Mind While Framing The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) & U/S 143(3) Rws 147 Of The Act. Further Order U/S 263 Is Also Passed Merely Setting Aside The Assessment To The File Of The Learned Assessing Officer To Conduct Proper Inquiry Which Is Unjustified. It Is Therefore Submitted That The Order Passed U/S 263 Should Be Cancelled.

For Appellant: Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Neena Jeph
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

PCIT has erred in passing the order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without jurisdiction as the order passed was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. It is therefore submitted that the order passed u/s 263 should be quashed as the same is illegal, void

Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Amritsar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Amritsar

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 65/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

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

order was passed as per acceptance of the returned income. The ld. PCIT issued notice invoking section 263 by considering the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The ld. PCIT had grievance that the cash deposit during impugned assessment year was not verified the source ... Rs.16 lac was treated as unverified cash deposit during demonetisation period. The ld. PCIT set aside the assessment order by treating it as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. 4. The ld. AR of the assessee has filed written

Shri Pranav Nalin Mehta, Nagpur vs. Pr.CIT-1, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 28/NAG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.28/Nag/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Pranav Nalin Mehta, Pr.Cit-1, Prop. M/S. Regal Marbles & Minerals, Vs. Nagpur 101, 1St Floor, Ramdeobaba Apartment, Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur 440 010 Pan : Acdpm8305P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.P. Dewani Revenue By : Shri Kailash Kanojiya

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya
Section 143(3)Section 263

full amount of purchases at Rs.6,37,988/-. That is how, he set-aside the assessment order by treating it as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue directing the AO to frame the assessment afresh. 4. After hearing the rival submissions and going through the relevant material

Shri Tifs Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd., Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 115/RJT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Darshak Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

income. 4. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by Ld. PCIT setting-aside the assessment order as being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us are two folds. Firstly, the Counsel ... record by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the assessment order is not liable to be set-aside as being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, looking into the facts of the instant case. 5. In response, Ld. D.R. submitted that the Gujarat High

Shri Ashokbhai Bhaisinh Jadeja, Jamnagar vs. The Pr. CIT, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 200/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

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

Learned PCIT, Jamnagar has erred in law as well as on facts in holding that scrutiny assessment made u/s. 143(3) is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2. Learned PCIT, Jamnagar has erred in law as well as on facts by not examining issue on the basis ... carried out any investigation in this regard. Accordingly, the PCIT set-aside the assessment order on the ground that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 6. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by the PCIT setting-aside

Shri Osham Jain Temple Trust, Rajkot, at . Patanvav, Taluka Dhoraji, Dist. Rajkot vs. The CIT-(Exemptions), Ahmedabad

In the result, the matter is being set-aside to the file of the CIT(E) with the aforesaid directions

ITA 116/RJT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Darshak Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 263

assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(E) holding that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. At the outset, we observe that the present appeal is time barred by 513 days. Before us the Counsel

India International Centre, Central Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2940/DEL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2018-19 India International Centre, Vs Cit(E), 40, Max Mueller Marg, New Delhi. Lodhi Estate, New Delhi – 110 003. Pan: Aaati0660C

For Appellant: Shri Krishna Mohan Prasad, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT,DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

assessment, the ld. PCIT passed a revision order u/s 263 of the Act treating the order passed by the ld. AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue with a direction to frame denovo assessment after proper examination of the issues raised in the revision proceedings