← 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

Career Point Limited, Kota, Rajasthan vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur, Rajasthan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 242/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

therefore, deserve to be annulled. 2. That learned PCIT erred in holding that the order section 143(3) passed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. Pr. CIT erred ... strong and tenable reasons to justify the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. So, the present proceedings assuming the order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue deserves to be set aside. 2.2 The complete details were called for, examined and verified At the outset

Janseva Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT-17, Mumbai

ITA 1225/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhjanseva Co-Operative Vs. Pcit-17 Credit Society Limited Room No. 120, 1 St Floor, 408, Maker Bhavan No. 3, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To 21, New Marine Lines, C-43, G Block, Bandra Mumbai – 400 020 Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaaj7811P Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Tanzil Padvekar Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor Date Of Hearing 25.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.08.2023 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-17, Mumbai, Dated 30.03.2023 For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & In Law, The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-17 Erred In Passing The Impugned Order Under Section 263 Of The Act By Invoking Powers Under Section 263 Of The Act Without Jurisdiction. Hence, The Impugned Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act Is Bad In Law & Without Meeting Jurisdictional Requirement As Twin Mandatory Conditions Are Not Fulfilled For Invoking Power Under Section 263 Of The Act. 2. On The Facts & In Law, The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-17 Has Erred In Relying On The Decision Of The Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Totgars Co-Operative Sale Society V/S. Income Tax

For Appellant: Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Ankush Kapoor
Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 8o

Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut (Supra) and therefore the Assessment Order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer cannot be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 8. On the facts and in law, the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-17 erred in holding ... facts and in law, the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-17 erred in holding the Assessment Order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue by merely making bald allegation which are short of any merits. The Assessment Order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial

Sterling Holiday Resorts Limited (on Behalf of Erstwhile Sterling Holiday Resorts(India) Limited), Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT-2, Mumbai

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

ITA 3793/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3793/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sterling Holiday Resorts बिधम/ Pcit-2 Limited (On Behalf Of Room No.344, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Erstwhile Sterling Holiday Aayakar Bhavan, Resorts (India) Limited) Mumbai-400020. Thomas Cook Building, D. N. Road, Fort, Mumbai- 400001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabct7079G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ketan Ved Revenue By: Smt Anne Varghese (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Action Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-02, Mumbai Dated 25.03.2019 For Assessment Year 2014-15 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Only Issue On Which The Ld. Pcit Has Invoked His Revisional Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act Is In Respect Of Following Issues: - (A) Carry Forward Unabsorbed Depreciation For Ay. 2004-5 To 2009-10 Of M/S. Manchanda Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Amounting To Rs.54,29,744/-. (B) Carry Forward Unabsorbed Depreciation For Ay. 2005-06, 2008-09 Of M/S. Sterling Holiday Resorts (I) Ltd., Amounting To Rs.5,51,57,288/-. (C) Carry Forward Business Loss Of M/S. Manchanda Resorts Pvt. Ltd. For Ay. 2009-10 & 2010-11 Amounting To Rs.7,16,96,555/-.”

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Smt Anne Varghese (Sr. AR)
Section 263Section 32(2)Section 72A

case of no enquiry by the assessing officer. Therefore, order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Accordingly, in view of the powers conferred upon me u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessment order is revised and the Assessing

Nimita Soni Prop. Swaranlata Traders, Bikaner vs. PCIT-1, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 41/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: The Hearing.”

Section 143(3)Section 263

also points to the same direction. They have held that orders, which are subversive of the administration of revenue, must be regarded as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. If the Assessing Officers are allowed to make assessments in an arbitrary manner, as has been done ... your end. In view of the foregoing, it can safely be said that an order passed by the Assessing Officer becomes erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue under Section 263 in the following cases: (i) The order sought to be revised contains error of reasoning

Walia Construcation Company, Pathankot vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Amritsar

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 139/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

Rs.1,75,67,215/-. As per the ld. PCIT. The assessee claimed excess depreciation on the tripper. The assessment order was treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue by invoking section 263. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. I.T.A. No. 139/Asr/2023 4 Assessment Year ... which used in the assessee’s business for hiring for transporting the goods. We find that the assessment order is not at all erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, the order I.T.A. No. 139/Asr/2023 9 Assessment Year: 2017-18 passed by the ld. PCIT

Shree Adinath Minority Credit Souhard Sahakari Ltd, Belgaum vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3), Belagavi

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 42/PAN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Prathamik Krushi Pattin Vs Ito, Ward-1, Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Nipani Ingali, Tal - Chikodi, Dist. Belgaum, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaap 1335 L Appellant Respondent Directorate Of Health Services Vs Ito, Ward-1(4), Employees Co-Op. Credit Panaji-Goa. Society Ltd., Campal, Panji. Pan: Aaaad 8637 P Appellant Respondent Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Vs Ito, Ward-2, Sangha Ltd., Kadatoka, Karwar. Honnavar, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaav 0321 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

calling upon the appellant society to explain as to why the assessment order dated 19.11.2019 should not be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. In response to the show cause notice, the appellant filed a detailed submission stating that the interest income earned ... consideration of explanation filed by the appellant held that the failure of the Assessing Officer to examine the issue rendered the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Accordingly, ld. PCIT set aside the assessment order with a direction to examine the assessee‟s claim of deduction

Ramanaguli Group Seva Sahakari Sangha Limited, Ankola vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Karwar

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 40/PAN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Prathamik Krushi Pattin Vs Ito, Ward-1, Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Nipani Ingali, Tal - Chikodi, Dist. Belgaum, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaap 1335 L Appellant Respondent Directorate Of Health Services Vs Ito, Ward-1(4), Employees Co-Op. Credit Panaji-Goa. Society Ltd., Campal, Panji. Pan: Aaaad 8637 P Appellant Respondent Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Vs Ito, Ward-2, Sangha Ltd., Kadatoka, Karwar. Honnavar, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaav 0321 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

calling upon the appellant society to explain as to why the assessment order dated 19.11.2019 should not be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. In response to the show cause notice, the appellant filed a detailed submission stating that the interest income earned ... consideration of explanation filed by the appellant held that the failure of the Assessing Officer to examine the issue rendered the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Accordingly, ld. PCIT set aside the assessment order with a direction to examine the assessee‟s claim of deduction

Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Sangha Limited, Kadatoka vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Karwar

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 117/PAN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Prathamik Krushi Pattin Vs Ito, Ward-1, Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Nipani Ingali, Tal - Chikodi, Dist. Belgaum, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaap 1335 L Appellant Respondent Directorate Of Health Services Vs Ito, Ward-1(4), Employees Co-Op. Credit Panaji-Goa. Society Ltd., Campal, Panji. Pan: Aaaad 8637 P Appellant Respondent Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Vs Ito, Ward-2, Sangha Ltd., Kadatoka, Karwar. Honnavar, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaav 0321 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

calling upon the appellant society to explain as to why the assessment order dated 19.11.2019 should not be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. In response to the show cause notice, the appellant filed a detailed submission stating that the interest income earned ... consideration of explanation filed by the appellant held that the failure of the Assessing Officer to examine the issue rendered the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Accordingly, ld. PCIT set aside the assessment order with a direction to examine the assessee‟s claim of deduction

Directorate of Health Services Employees Co-Operative Society Ltd, Panaji vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Panaji

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 115/PAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Prathamik Krushi Pattin Vs Ito, Ward-1, Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Nipani Ingali, Tal - Chikodi, Dist. Belgaum, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaap 1335 L Appellant Respondent Directorate Of Health Services Vs Ito, Ward-1(4), Employees Co-Op. Credit Panaji-Goa. Society Ltd., Campal, Panji. Pan: Aaaad 8637 P Appellant Respondent Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Vs Ito, Ward-2, Sangha Ltd., Kadatoka, Karwar. Honnavar, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaav 0321 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

calling upon the appellant society to explain as to why the assessment order dated 19.11.2019 should not be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. In response to the show cause notice, the appellant filed a detailed submission stating that the interest income earned ... consideration of explanation filed by the appellant held that the failure of the Assessing Officer to examine the issue rendered the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Accordingly, ld. PCIT set aside the assessment order with a direction to examine the assessee‟s claim of deduction

Prathamik Krushi Pattin Sahakari Sangh Nyt, Ingali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Nipani

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 113/PAN/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing) Prathamik Krushi Pattin Vs Ito, Ward-1, Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Nipani Ingali, Tal - Chikodi, Dist. Belgaum, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaap 1335 L Appellant Respondent Directorate Of Health Services Vs Ito, Ward-1(4), Employees Co-Op. Credit Panaji-Goa. Society Ltd., Campal, Panji. Pan: Aaaad 8637 P Appellant Respondent Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Vs Ito, Ward-2, Sangha Ltd., Kadatoka, Karwar. Honnavar, Karnataka. Pan: Aaaav 0321 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

calling upon the appellant society to explain as to why the assessment order dated 19.11.2019 should not be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. In response to the show cause notice, the appellant filed a detailed submission stating that the interest income earned ... consideration of explanation filed by the appellant held that the failure of the Assessing Officer to examine the issue rendered the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Accordingly, ld. PCIT set aside the assessment order with a direction to examine the assessee‟s claim of deduction

Abhishek Kumar, Noida vs. Pr. CIT, Noida

ITA 1141/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarabhishek Kumar, Vs. Pr Cit, E-9, Sector-41, Noida, Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Artpk4445M Assessee By : Sh. Raghav Sharma, Ca Ms. Chandrima Chaudhury, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Amitabh Kumar Sinha, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Raghav Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amitabh Kumar Sinha, CIT DR
Section 263

consideration on record the relevant said documentary evidence of assessee. The ld counsel, therefore, submitted that the assessment order cannot be alleged as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue therefore, revisionary order may kindly be quashed or set aside. The ld counsel submitted that the ld PCIT ... issued show cause to the assessee and taking into consideration reply/ written submissions of assessee set aside the assessment order which was apparently erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The ld CIT DR submitted that the Ld PCIT in para 4.1 to 4.8 evaluated the factual position

M/S Food Health Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, the assessee's appeal in ITA No

ITA 37/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR
Section 10(37)Section 105Section 143(3)Section 263Section 96

Income Tax, Raipur-1, u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, setting aside the assessment framed u/s. 143(3) of the Act as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, is without jurisdiction and bad in law, and therefore, liable to be quashed. A.Y.2017-18 2. That the appellant

M/S Raipur Reality Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, the assessee's appeal in ITA No

ITA 36/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR
Section 10(37)Section 105Section 143(3)Section 263Section 96

Income Tax, Raipur-1, u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, setting aside the assessment framed u/s. 143(3) of the Act as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, is without jurisdiction and bad in law, and therefore, liable to be quashed. A.Y.2017-18 2. That the appellant

M/S Heritage Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, the assessee's appeal in ITA No

ITA 35/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR
Section 10(37)Section 105Section 143(3)Section 263Section 96

Income Tax, Raipur-1, u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, setting aside the assessment framed u/s. 143(3) of the Act as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, is without jurisdiction and bad in law, and therefore, liable to be quashed. A.Y.2017-18 2. That the appellant

Mumbai Postal Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1051/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1050 & 1051/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17) Mumbai Postal Employees Vs. Income Tax Officer, Co-Operative Credit Ward 17(2)(1) Society Limited, Gpo Room No. 115, 1 St Floor, Building, Fort, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Mumbai – 400001 C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaajm0032G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Neena Jeph
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

made therefore, vide order u/s 263 of the Act dated 22.01.2021 the order passed u/s 143(3) dated 28.04.2017 was held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as the assessing officer failed to make necessary inquiry as to the issue of taxability of interest income ... ACIT (2015) 377 ITR 272 (Bom). No action against said order could legitimately be initiated u/s 263 as the said order was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. - CIT VS. Paul Brothers 216 ITR 548 (Bom.). Refer Annexure 8. vi. The assessment order also followed principle

Mumbai Postal Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1050/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1050 & 1051/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17) Mumbai Postal Employees Vs. Income Tax Officer, Co-Operative Credit Ward 17(2)(1) Society Limited, Gpo Room No. 115, 1 St Floor, Building, Fort, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Mumbai – 400001 C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaajm0032G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Neena Jeph
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

made therefore, vide order u/s 263 of the Act dated 22.01.2021 the order passed u/s 143(3) dated 28.04.2017 was held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as the assessing officer failed to make necessary inquiry as to the issue of taxability of interest income ... ACIT (2015) 377 ITR 272 (Bom). No action against said order could legitimately be initiated u/s 263 as the said order was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. - CIT VS. Paul Brothers 216 ITR 548 (Bom.). Refer Annexure 8. vi. The assessment order also followed principle

Gm International, Delhi vs. AO Ward-36(1), Delhi

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

ITA 786/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson CIT- DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68

without making proper enquiry c) without making proper verification. 25. Devoid of aforementioned pre-conditions, the assessment order cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 26. In the light of the aforestated facts the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial ... 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

Late Smt Sushila Bisarya, Bhopal vs. The Pr CIT-1, Bhopal

In the result, we are Shri Jignesh Lilachand Shah vs

ITA 89/IND/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanilate Smt. Sushila Bisarya Pr. Cit-1 L.H. Pramod Bisarya Bhopal Vs. 125 Malviya Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aewpb 2587 D Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.08.2023

Section 147Section 148Section 263

passed the impugned revision order whereby the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) dated 31st July 2017 was held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and consequently set aside u/s 263 with the direction to the AO to make afresh assessment order after ... Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (I)-Bhopal has erred in holding the assessment order passed by the Learned A.O. on 31.07.2017 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue as the A.O. has raised specific query

Santosh Agrawal, Bhopal vs. The Pr CIT -1, Bhopal

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 84/IND/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisantosh Agrawal Pr. Cit-1 Mig-11, Mla Quarters Bhopal Vs. Jawahar Chowk Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ahkpa 1449E Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16 .08.2023

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 48

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (I)-Bhopal has erred in holding the assessment order passed by the Learned A.O. on 28.09.2017 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue as the A.O. has raised specific query

Majestic Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, Central- 3, New Delhi

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

ITA 3088/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: The Due Date Of Itr Should Have Been Disallowed U/S 43B.”

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271BSection 37Section 43BSection 44A

justified in setting aside the assessment order dated 30.03.2016 passed u/s 143(3) for making it a fresh holding it to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue within the meaning of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that:- 2 ITA No.3088/Del./2018