← 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

The Manjri Stud Farm Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(2)(2)-Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 1106/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blethe Manjri Stud Farm Pvt. Ltd., V. Acti – Central Circle – 2(2)(2) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 41/44, Shapoorji Pallonji Centre Mumbai - 400020 Minoo Desai Marg, Colaba Mumbai - 400005 Pan: Aaact1947J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 263

Thus it is submitted that considering the above facts and the legal position explained hereinabove the Assessment Order cannot be said to be erroneous and/or prejudicial to the interests of revenue which is a sine qua non for invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Income ... Principal Commissioner of Income-tax has erred in holding that the Assessment Order dated 25 December 2019 passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. 1:3 The Appellant submits that the impugned Order u/s. 263 of the Principal Commissioner of Income

Nahar Colours and Coatinhgs Private Limited, Udaipur vs. Principal Commissioner Ofincometax, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/JODH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Aug 2023AY 2018-19
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801ASection 80I

grounds:- “1. The Id. PCIT, has erred in passing the order u/s 263 holding Nil that the assessment made u/s 143(3) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The said order u/s 263 is bad in law and bad on facts. The original assessment cannot be said ... erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue and was made after due verification. 2. The Id. PCIT has erred in observing that common expenses of 8,74,100 Rs. 29,13,664/- deserves to be allocated to business eligible for deduction u/s 801A. The income was computed

Rajkot Jilla Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Limited, Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 49/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Achary, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

respect eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) is concerned, in our view, the order passed by the Assessing Officer is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue for the reason that firstly, the Assessing Officer had examined this issue during the course of assessment proceedings ... considered view that Principal CIT has not erred in facts and in law in holding that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue with respect to the issue of late deposit of PF and enquiry into taxability of interest on tax refund. The Assessing

Shree Laxmi Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax -41, Mumbai

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

ITA 1265/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43C

registration has been cancelled by MCA. Hence the learned PCIT took the view that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Accordingly, he initiated revision proceedings under section 263 of the Act. 3. With regard to the first issue ... possible and the Income-tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law.” The principle which has been

M/S. Bains Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1 (1), Hoshiarpur

ITA 133/ASR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar08 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anupam Kant Gart, CIT-DR
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

ignored the various submissions filed before him and while holding that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, following the ITAT Amritsar Bench decision dated 22.09.2021 in ITA No. 384/Asr/2018 in the assessee’s own case

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 152/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT
Section 115JSection 250Section 32(1)(ii)Section 80Section 80I

income will not be part of MAT income and MAT tax. Thus, the assessment order was rightly passed and cannot be termed as erroneous and prejudicial to interest of Revenue.” Hon’ble Chennai Tribunal in ACIT -vs.- State Industrial Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited [ITA No. 1290/Mds/2011 dated

Maharishi Ayurveda Products Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-16(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1054/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshmaharishi Ayurveda Products Vs. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd, Circle-16(1), Flat No. 40, Pocket-H, Delhi Ground Floor, Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccm5403A Assessee By : Sh. Sanjay Garg, Fca Sh. Akarsh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Ms. Raja Rajeshwari R, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 04/08/2023

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Garg, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Raja Rajeshwari R, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

erred in law and on facts in holding that the assessment order passed under section 143(3) dated 11.12.2019, was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and setting aside the same to make de novo assessment. 2. BECAUSE the "Pr. CIT" has erred in law and on facts ... erred in erred in law and on facts in holding that the assessment order passed under section 143(3) dated 11.12.2019, was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and setting aside the same to make de novo assessment. He further contended that ld. PCIT has grossly erred

Smt. Nishaben Harenbhai Doshi, Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 32/RJT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri R. D. Lalchandani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR
Section 263

following grounds of appeals:- “1. The Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax erred in holding that the order of the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The order of the assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Smt. Nisha Haren Doshi ... against income of the impugned assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2012-13. The Ld. PCIT set-aside the assessment order as being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue with the following observations:- “5. In the present proceedings also the assessee has reiterated the same version as earlier before

Shri Avtar Singh Through L/Heair Shri Gurtej Singh, Kapurthala vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 165/ASR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

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

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

assessee. The ld. PCIT had issued notice u/s 263 for incomplete verification of the agricultural income and had treated the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In relation to show I.T.A. No. 165/Asr/2023 3 Assessment Year: 2018-19 cause u/s 263 the assessee filed ... prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, the order passed by the Assessing Officer is held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The case is, therefore, set I.T.A. No. 165/Asr/2023 7 Assessment Year: 2018-19 aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh

Dristi Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. Pr. CIT, Ghaziabad

ITA 3813/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

assessee on 28.06.2018, by the then Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, after considering assessment order passed by the A.O. to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Relevant portion of the same is reproduced below:- i) “The case of the assessee company was selected for scrutiny ... gain of shares and same has not been properly examined by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings, so the order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 8. The first thing that comes up from the finding of learned Pr. CIT is that when notices

Fdc Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Cir-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 1031/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(i)Section 37(1)Section 80G

Learned PCIT examined the record for the year under consideration and took the view that the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, since the Assessing Officer has allowed the following claims made by the assessee without carrying out due enquiries ... have been allowed. After hearing the assessee on the above said three issues, the learned PCIT held that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, he set aside the assessment order and directed the Assessing Officer to reframe the assessment order de-novo after

Shree Murlidhar Jewellers, Jamnagar vs. The Pr.CIT-IV, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 27/RJT/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2016-17 Shree Murlidharjewellers Vs. The Pr.Cit-4 Chandi Bazar Jamnagar. Jamnagar 361 001. Pan : Aaifs 4781 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assesseeby : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17/05/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/08/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Ld.Pr.Commissioner Of Income-Tax)-4, Jamnagar [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld.Pr.Cit)”] Dated 11.12.2019In Exercise Of His Revisionary Power Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act , 1961 ("The Act" For Short) Over The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Asst.Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: I) The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax - 4, Jamnagar Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act, Particularly In The Light Of Reasons Stated By Him In The Show Cause Notice & In The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Act & Hence The Impugned Order Is Bad In Law. 2 Ii) The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax - 4, Jamnagar Erred In Directing The Assessing Officer To Make Addition Of Rs. 70,89,098/- U/S 69 Of The Act By Failing To Appreciate That Provisions Of Section 69 Were Not Attracted In.”

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, ld.CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 69

Explanation (2) of section 263 of the Act elucidates cases where the opinion of the Assessing Officer can be treated to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Explanation (2) reads as follows: "Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that

Smt Nayana Jayesh Patel, Indore vs. ACIT ( OSD ), Indore

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 100/IND/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaninayana Jayesh Patel Pr. Cit 29/5, South Tukoganj Indore Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Afypp 2075H Assessee By Shri Sudhir Padliya, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 01.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02 .08.2023

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 50CSection 54B

inquiry on the part of the AO so as to give power to the Pr. CIT to set aside the assessment order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. He has relied upon the decision of Kolkata Benches of the Tribunal in case of Peerless General Finance & Investment ... that the AO has after making proper inquiry and applied his mind accepted the claim of the assessee it cannot be termed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 6. Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee interred into an agreement for sale of agricultural land

Allied Photographics India Ltd., Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 1083/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanm/S Alliedphotographics Vs. Pr.Cit-1, India Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Room No.330, Kasturi Buildings, 3Rd Floor, Jamshedji Tata Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, M.K. Road, Mumbai -400020. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. : Aabca2068A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nitish Gandhi.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Smiti Samant. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-1, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Mr.Nitish Gandhi.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Smiti Samant. DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263

information found that the order passed by the AO under section 143(3) r.w.s 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and issued revision notice U/sec 263 of the Act as under: ITA Nos. 1083/Mum/2023 M/s Allied Photographics India ... Pr.CIT was not satisfied with the explanations and submissions and is of the opinion that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, and accordingly issued directions to the AO observing at page 2 Para 5 to 11 of the order

Au Small Finance Bank Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 279/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT
Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. PCIT. has failed to appreciate that the Assessment Order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue, thus, order passed u/s 263 of the Act is perverse, arbitrary, bad in law and without jurisdiction ... grossly erred in directing the Ld. AO for fresh assessment u/s 263 of the Act without holding how the Assessment Order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and without appreciating the fact that the Ld. AO has duly verified the deduction with respect to bad debts

Leariningmate Solutions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Ld Principle Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Mumbai

ITA 1696/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Shri Karthik NatarajanFor Respondent: MS N. V. Nadkarni
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 37(1)

dated 28/01/2021, passed under Section 143(3) read with Sections 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act by holding the same to the erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Appellant has raised following grounds of appeal: 2. "1. In the facts of the case and under ... view of the above decision of the Tribunal, we hold that the order passed by the Assessing Officer cannot be regarded as erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Further, in any case, it cannot be denied that the view taken by the Assessing Officer was a plausible

Reliance Entertainment Network Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax-8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1434/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhreliance Entertainment Vs. Principal Commissioner Networks Pvt. Ltd. Of Income Tax-8, Maneke Mahal, 6Th Floor, Room No. 611, 6 Th Floor, 90, Veer Nariman Road Aayakar Bhavan Churchgate M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacr2367J Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Jitendra Sanghvi & Amit Khatiwala Respondent By : Neena Jeph Date Of Hearing 25.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order U/S 263 Of The Act Passed By The Ld. Pr. Cit, Mumbai-8, Dated 28.03.2023 For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 08. Mumbai (The Pcit) Erred In Invoking The Provisions Of Section 263 Of The Act & Directing Setting Aside Of The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -8(1)(1), Mumbai (The Assessing Officer) Dated 3.3.2021 On The Alleged Ground That The Said Assessment Order Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Jitendra Sanghvi &For Respondent: Neena Jeph
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

Income Tax, Circle -8(1)(1), Mumbai (the Assessing Officer) dated 3.3.2021 on the alleged ground that the said assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. P a g e | 2 Reliance Entertainment Networks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.CIT-8 2. Under the facts ... Assessing Officer has examined all the details and explanations filed by the Appellant and therefore the order of assessment is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned PCIT failed to appreciate that the assessment order

Rivet Electricals P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Faridabad

Appeal are allowed

ITA 775/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

accepting the return of income at Rs. 1,78,430/-. Later, Pr. CIT, Faridabad held the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, thereby cancelling the order. The Ld. Pr. CIT passed the revision order u/s 263 on 28.08.2019. During the fresh assessment proceedings

The Maestro Multi State Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited, Delhi vs. Ward-34(5), Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed on merits

ITA 585/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshthe Maestro Multi State Vs. Pcit, Cooperative Group Housing Delhi-12, Society Ltd, D-24, Green View Apartments, Sector-9, Rohini, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aabat7650F Assessee By : Sh. Raghav Sharma, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Sarita Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 25/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2023

For Appellant: Sh. Raghav Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumar, CIT DR
Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)

therefore, allowed claimed of the assessee which is quite correct and sustainable, therefore, as the assessment order cannot be alleged as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 7. On careful consideration of the above submission, first of all, we note that in the present case the assessee ... right in allowing claim of assessee u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act and therefore, the assessment order cannot be alleged as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue on merits. Therefore, we are compelled to hold that ld PCIT was not correct and justified in invoking revisionary provision

Ntpc Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd., New Delhi vs. PCIT-06, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 145/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 119Section 143Section 143(3)Section 156Section 263

Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd. 3. In view of the above, the ld. PCIT held that the assessment order passed by the ACIT is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and hence directed the AO to make proper verification of the issue. 4. Aggrieved, the order