← 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

Sheth Chimanlal Govinddas Memorial Trust, Pune vs. CIT(Exemption), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1224/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2025AY 2020-21
Section 11Section 12ASection 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

considered opinion that the ld.CIT(Exemption) has rightly invoked provisions of Section 263 of the Act, as the Assessment Order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 18. Ld. AR has pleaded that all details were filed during assessment proceedings and Assessing Officer has taken a plausible view ... there is no merit in the pleadings of the Ld.AR. 18. For all the reasons discussed in earlier paragraphs, the Assessment Order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Hence the Order u/s.263 is upheld. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed

Avon Cycles Limited, G.T Road, Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, 1, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana

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

ITA 705/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं/. Ita No. 705/Chd/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Avon Cycles Ltd., Vs The Pcit-I, G.T.Road, Dhandari Kalan, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायीलेखासं/.Pan No: Aabca4140R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ashish Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/12/2025 Physical Hearing Order Per Laliet Kumar, Jm This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ludhiana-1 (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Pcit"), Dated 27.03.2025, Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The "Act") For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Substantive Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That Ld. Pcit -1, Ludhiana, Erred In Law & On Facts In Assuming The Jurisdiction To Invoke The Provisions Of Section 263 Of The Act To Set Aside The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi) When The Order Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. The Order Passed By Ld. Pcit(1), Ludhiana, Being Illegal Unjustified & Against The Provisions Of Section 263 May Be Annulled. 2. That Ld. Pcit (1) Erred In Law & On Facts In Setting Aside The Order Of Assessing Officer (National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi) By Applying The Different Approach On The Same Set Of Facts On The Issues Already Considered By The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 263Section 69C

aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer (National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi) when the order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The order passed by Ld. PCIT(1), Ludhiana, being illegal unjustified and against the provisions of section 263 may be annulled. 2. That ... made all enquiries which were duly replied by the assessee, the order u/s 143(3) cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue within the meaning of Explanation 2 to sub-section 263 of the Act. Therefore you are requested to kindly drop the proceeding

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Balajee Mini Steels & Rerolling Private Limited, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1725/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Praveen Kishore &
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 147

exercise of his revisionary powers under section 263 of the Act held that the order of the assessing officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, in as much as the AO had not examined the addition to be made in the light of the provision ... therefore a possible view in law. 27. For the reasons given above, we hold that the orders of the AO were not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue for failure to make enquiry on the applicability of Sec. 69C of the Act. We, therefore, quash the orders

DCIT, Central Circle- 4(3), Kolkata vs. Balajee Mini Steels & Rerolling Private Limited, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1691/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Praveen Kishore &
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 147

exercise of his revisionary powers under section 263 of the Act held that the order of the assessing officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, in as much as the AO had not examined the addition to be made in the light of the provision ... therefore a possible view in law. 27. For the reasons given above, we hold that the orders of the AO were not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue for failure to make enquiry on the applicability of Sec. 69C of the Act. We, therefore, quash the orders

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Balajee Mini Steels & Rerolling Private Limited, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1690/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Praveen Kishore &
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 147

exercise of his revisionary powers under section 263 of the Act held that the order of the assessing officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, in as much as the AO had not examined the addition to be made in the light of the provision ... therefore a possible view in law. 27. For the reasons given above, we hold that the orders of the AO were not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue for failure to make enquiry on the applicability of Sec. 69C of the Act. We, therefore, quash the orders

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Balajee Mini Steels & Rerolling Private Limited, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1689/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 147

exercise of his revisionary powers under section 263 of the Act held that the order of the assessing officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, in as much as the AO had not examined the addition to be made in the light of the provision ... therefore a possible view in law. 27. For the reasons given above, we hold that the orders of the AO were not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue for failure to make enquiry on the applicability of Sec. 69C of the Act. We, therefore, quash the orders

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Balajee Mini Steels & Rerolling Private Limited, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1688/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: S/Shri Praveen Kishore &
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 147

exercise of his revisionary powers under section 263 of the Act held that the order of the assessing officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, in as much as the AO had not examined the addition to be made in the light of the provision ... therefore a possible view in law. 27. For the reasons given above, we hold that the orders of the AO were not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue for failure to make enquiry on the applicability of Sec. 69C of the Act. We, therefore, quash the orders

Smt. Vandana Saraogi, Katni vs. PCIT(Central) Bhopal at Jaba, Jabalpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 86/JAB/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.2016-17 Smt Vandana Saraogi Vs. Principal Commissioner Prop. Mahalaxmi Industries, Ghantaghar, Of Income Tax (Central) Hanumanganj Ward, Katni-483222. Bhopal At Jabalpur Director General Of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, 48, Arera Hills, Bhopal-462011. Pan: Asips2301L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Shravan Kumar Meena, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.12.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit(Central), Bhopal At Jabalpur U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, For Short) Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 153A Read With Section 143(3) Of The Act Dated 22.04.2021. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Shravan Kumar Meena, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 263(1)

during the course of 263 of the Act proceedings and proceeded to hold that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, his order could not be sustained. The Ld.AR also placed reliance on the copy of the order ... gains, the Ld. PCIT had issued a show cause notice to the assessee asking why the order should not be revised as being erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. The assessee had replied with complete details, to show how the order that was passed by the Assessing Officer

M/S Ambajee Jewellers Jabalpur, Jabalpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Jabalpur-1, Jabalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 21/JAB/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Nikhil Choudhary

For Respondent: Shri Shravan Kumar Meena, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 68

PCIT was therefore, correct in observing that the AO had not made the additions she ought to have and, therefore, the order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The learned PCIT had also pointed out that there was a discrepancy in the profit as per the audited account

Bangar Raju Penmetsa, Bhimavaram vs. ACIT., Central Circle -1(4), Hyderabad

ITA 1178/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 250

assessee to M/s. Opus Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 6.1 Ground No. 1 is general regarding the order passed under Section 144 r.w.s. 153A is erroneous and prejudicial to the appellant. However, no specific issue is raised in this ground. The validity and merits of the assessment order have been discussed

Haldiram Snacks Private Limited, Haryana vs. PCIT (Central), Delhi-3, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3371/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Haldiram Snacks Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. Cit (Central), Village- Kherki Daula, Delhi Delhi-3, Room No. Jaipur Highway Basai Road, 325, 3Rd Floor, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001. Jhandewalan Extn. Pan-Aaach0061R New Delhi-110055 Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv., Shri Deepanshu Kaushik, Adv & Ms. Ragani Handa, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Sita Srivastava, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2025

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 14ASection 153CSection 153DSection 263

case is without satisfaction of the mandatory twin conditions under section 263 of the Act, namely that the assessment order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue in the absence of such satisfaction, the impugned order passed in pursuance thereto is liable to be quashed ... further verification. Further the assessee has challenged the jurisdiction of the ld. PCIT to hold the assessment order passed u/s 153C as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue though he has not doubted /annulled the approval granted by the Adl. CIT u/s 153D

Tarun Kumar Sahay(HUF), Delhi vs. PCIT(Central)-3, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3370/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Tarun Kumar Sahay (Huf) Vs Pr. Cit (Central), 171, First Floor, Cycle Market, Delhi-3 Jhandewalan Extn., Delhi-110055. Pan-Aacht1105P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Adv. & Shri Shivam Yadav, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Sita Srivastava, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12 .12.2025

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 148Section 153CSection 153DSection 263

revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act without examining or holding the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, thereby vitiating the very assumption of jurisdiction. 5. Without prejudice, that the notice issued under Section ... under the law. 8. That the PCIT has erred in holding the assessment order passed under Section 153C of the Act to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue without demonstrating any cogent or objective basis to support such a conclusion. 9. That the assumption of jurisdiction

Alka Agarwal, Delhi vs. PCIT(Central)-3, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3369/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2015-16] Alka Agarwal Vs Pr. Cit (Central), 56, Sfs Flats, Ashok Vihar, Delhi-3 Phase-Iv, Delhi-110052. Pan-Aajpa1281C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Adv. & Shri Shivam Yadav, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Sita Srivastava, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2025

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 153CSection 153DSection 263Section 69Section 69A

revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act without examining or holding the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, thereby vitiating the very assumption of jurisdiction. 6. Without prejudice, that the notice issued under Section ... under the law. 9. That the PCIT has erred in holding the assessment order passed under Section 153C of the Act to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue without demonstrating any cogent or objective basis to support such a conclusion. 10. That the assumption of jurisdiction

Subhash Jaiswal Associates, Bareilly vs. PCIT Bareilly, Bareilly

ITA 100/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

For Appellant: Respondent by
Section 143(3)Section 263

passing an order under section 263 of the Act on the grounds that the original assessment order passed under section 143(3) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and directing AO to frame fresh assessment order (de novo) after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing ... substitute his own view. Grounds No. 6 That the finding of Learned PCIT, Bareilly that order of the learned Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue is factually incorrect, legally misconceived, contrary to evidence on record; and in any case is vague, based on surmiseful considerations

Ideal Sheet Metal Stampings and Pressings Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1032/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

Rs.12,00,000/- made by the assessee to M/s. Aadhar Foundation. Therefore, the assessment order of the Assessing Officer was held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, the Ld. PCIT set aside the assessment order dated 05.09.2022 passed u/s143(3) of the Act with ... issue of alleged bogus donation under section 80G of the Act. The order passed by AO after due verification of issue being neither erroneous nor prejudicial to interest of revenue, PR.CIT erred in revising the said Order. It be so held now and order u/s.263 be set aside

Haryana Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Panchkula vs. DCIT, Exemption, Sector 17

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 339/CHANDI/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 263

such view, revision under section 263 is not permissible. 3.1.4 Section 263 can be invoked only if the impugned assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The twin conditions are conjunctive, satisfaction of only one does not permit revision. The record demonstrates that ... establish that full enquiries were made and the order was passed after due application of mind. Therefore, the allegation that the order was “erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue” is factually incorrect and legally untenable. 3.2 It is not a case of “no enquiry” 3.2.1 The Learned

Haryana Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Panchkula vs. DCIT, Exemption, Chandigarh

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 338/CHANDI/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 263

such view, revision under section 263 is not permissible. 3.1.4 Section 263 can be invoked only if the impugned assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The twin conditions are conjunctive, satisfaction of only one does not permit revision. The record demonstrates that ... establish that full enquiries were made and the order was passed after due application of mind. Therefore, the allegation that the order was "erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue" is factually incorrect and legally untenable. 3.2 It is not a case of “no enquiry” 3.2.1 The Learned

Haryana Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Panchkula vs. CIT(Exemption), Chandigarh

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 63/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 263

such view, revision under section 263 is not permissible. 3.1.4 Section 263 can be invoked only if the impugned assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The twin conditions are conjunctive, satisfaction of only one does not permit revision. The record demonstrates that ... establish that full enquiries were made and the order was passed after due application of mind. Therefore, the allegation that the order was “erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue” is factually incorrect and legally untenable. 3.2 It is not a case of “no enquiry” 3.2.1 The Learned

Mehsana Taluka Madhyamik Teachars Credit and Consumers Sahakari Mandali, Mehsana vs. ITO, Ward-2, Mehsana Presently Ward-1, Mehsana

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

ITA 1923/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehal Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

deduction on interest earned by assessee, a cooperative society, from investment made with a cooperative bank under section 80P(2)(d) which was erroneous and prejudicial to Interest of revenue Tribunal reversed Principal Commissioner's order holding that cooperative bank was a cooperative society registered under Gujarat State Cooperative Societies ... which is in consonance with the various decisions of the Court as a twin condition invoking section 263 as to the assessment being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue are not being fulfilled. [Para 33]  In view of the foregoing reasons the question is answered in favour

Income Tax Officer Ward 411 Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Sharanam Reality Private Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1839/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 43C

referred as the PCIT) had examined the case records of the assessee and considered the assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 31/10/2017 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and accordingly he had passed an order u/s 263 of the Act on 23/03/2020 whereby he set-aside