← 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 Pirna Urban Co-Op. Credit Society Limited, Pirna, Goa vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Panaji

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and the Revenues are dismissed

ITA 153/PAN/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) Shri Lokakalyan Souhard Vs Pr.Cit, Belagavi. Sahakari Niyamit, Jatrat, Tal- Chikodi, Dist. Belagavi. Pan: Aaajs 2263 H Appellant Respondent Shree Kalika Urban Co-Op Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Credit Society Ltd., Shop Panaji. No.3, Rituraj Plaza, Keni Wada, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa. Pan: Aacas 1697 Q Appellant Respondent Goa Bagayatdar Sahakari Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Kharedi Vikri Saunstha Panaji. Maryadit, Bagayatdar Bhavan, Ponda, Upper Bazar, Goa. Pan: Aaaag 2147 B Appellant Respondent The Marcela Urban Co-Op Vs Ito, Ward-2(3), Credit Society Ltd., Janavikas Panaji. Building, Near Kadamba Bus Stand, Marcela, North Goa, Goa. Pan: Aadat 5762 G Appellant Respondent

Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)

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

The Pirna Urban Co-Op. Credit Society Limited, Pirna, Goa vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Panaji

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and the Revenues are dismissed

ITA 152/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) Shri Lokakalyan Souhard Vs Pr.Cit, Belagavi. Sahakari Niyamit, Jatrat, Tal- Chikodi, Dist. Belagavi. Pan: Aaajs 2263 H Appellant Respondent Shree Kalika Urban Co-Op Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Credit Society Ltd., Shop Panaji. No.3, Rituraj Plaza, Keni Wada, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa. Pan: Aacas 1697 Q Appellant Respondent Goa Bagayatdar Sahakari Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Kharedi Vikri Saunstha Panaji. Maryadit, Bagayatdar Bhavan, Ponda, Upper Bazar, Goa. Pan: Aaaag 2147 B Appellant Respondent The Marcela Urban Co-Op Vs Ito, Ward-2(3), Credit Society Ltd., Janavikas Panaji. Building, Near Kadamba Bus Stand, Marcela, North Goa, Goa. Pan: Aadat 5762 G Appellant Respondent

Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)

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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2 (1), Panaji. vs. M/S Shree Kalika Urban Co-Op. Credit Society Limited, Mapusa

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and the Revenues are dismissed

ITA 147/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) Shri Lokakalyan Souhard Vs Pr.Cit, Belagavi. Sahakari Niyamit, Jatrat, Tal- Chikodi, Dist. Belagavi. Pan: Aaajs 2263 H Appellant Respondent Shree Kalika Urban Co-Op Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Credit Society Ltd., Shop Panaji. No.3, Rituraj Plaza, Keni Wada, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa. Pan: Aacas 1697 Q Appellant Respondent Goa Bagayatdar Sahakari Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Kharedi Vikri Saunstha Panaji. Maryadit, Bagayatdar Bhavan, Ponda, Upper Bazar, Goa. Pan: Aaaag 2147 B Appellant Respondent The Marcela Urban Co-Op Vs Ito, Ward-2(3), Credit Society Ltd., Janavikas Panaji. Building, Near Kadamba Bus Stand, Marcela, North Goa, Goa. Pan: Aadat 5762 G Appellant Respondent

Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)

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

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2 (1), Panaji. vs. M/S Goa Bagayatdar Sahakari Kharedi Vikri Saunstha Maryadit, Ponda

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and the Revenues are dismissed

ITA 146/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji04 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) Shri Lokakalyan Souhard Vs Pr.Cit, Belagavi. Sahakari Niyamit, Jatrat, Tal- Chikodi, Dist. Belagavi. Pan: Aaajs 2263 H Appellant Respondent Shree Kalika Urban Co-Op Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Credit Society Ltd., Shop Panaji. No.3, Rituraj Plaza, Keni Wada, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa. Pan: Aacas 1697 Q Appellant Respondent Goa Bagayatdar Sahakari Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Kharedi Vikri Saunstha Panaji. Maryadit, Bagayatdar Bhavan, Ponda, Upper Bazar, Goa. Pan: Aaaag 2147 B Appellant Respondent The Marcela Urban Co-Op Vs Ito, Ward-2(3), Credit Society Ltd., Janavikas Panaji. Building, Near Kadamba Bus Stand, Marcela, North Goa, Goa. Pan: Aadat 5762 G Appellant Respondent

Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)

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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle- 2(1), Bilaspur vs. M/S Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Bilaspur

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 92/RPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 92/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bilaspur .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Sahakari Bhawan, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.) Pan : Aaaaj0607P ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263(1)

call for and examine the records of a proceeding under the Act and revise any order if he considers the same to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. g) The assessee has placed reliance on various case decisions, which have been gone through. In my opinion

Tata Aig Life Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3557/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 263Section 44

insurance. The assessee objected to the proposed revision proceedings by submitting that the re-assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The assessee further submitted that the Assessing Officer has consciously adopted the position that surplus as per Form ... Assessing Officer while completing the reassessment has applied his mind and, therefore, the CIT is not justified in holding that the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Further , the Ld.AR drew our attention to the order of the CIT(A) passed against appeal filed against

Tata Aig Life Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3556/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 263Section 44

insurance. The assessee objected to the proposed revision proceedings by submitting that the re-assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The assessee further submitted that the Assessing Officer has consciously adopted the position that surplus as per Form ... Assessing Officer while completing the reassessment has applied his mind and, therefore, the CIT is not justified in holding that the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Further , the Ld.AR drew our attention to the order of the CIT(A) passed against appeal filed against

Iris Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1001/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ishraq M. ContractorFor Respondent: Shri Manish Sareen
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 2(19)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

PCIT alleged that the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with sections 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue within the meaning of Explanation 2 to section 263(1) of the Act. 6. In response thereto ... which the AO has failed to do. Vide impugned order, the learned PCIT held the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and accordingly, set aside the same, with a direction to the AO to frame the assessment de novo after proper application

M/S Kepco Plant Service & Engineering Co Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-(It), Mumbai

ITA 1030/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripurari
Section 143(3)Section 263

under section 263 of the Act, holding that the Assessment Order passed by the AO under section 143(3) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, bad in law, illegal, non- est and ultra-vires the provisions of section ... holding that reference of only domestic transaction to the TPO demonstrated non- application of mind by the AO, rendering the Assessment Order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2 ITA No.1056/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) 1.4. That the assumption of jurisdiction by Ld. CIT under section

Omm Shree Realcon Pvt. Ltd, Bhubaneswar vs. Pr.CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 97/CTK/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2018-19 Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit- Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-1 Plot No.418, Forest Park, 8, Forest Park, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabco 3118 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca S.K.Sarangi, Ca Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 28 /0 06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28 /0 /06/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 68

applicability to the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that the assessment order originally passed on 29.1.2021 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest P a g e 3 | 31 Assessment Year : 2018-19 of the revenue on this issue. In regard to second issue being ... already considered the issue and taken a possible view and not made any addition, it cannot be said that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It was the prayer that the order u/s.263 is liable to be quashed. 8. In reply

Dipankar Mohan Ghosh, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-1(3)(2) Int. Tax., New Delhi

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

ITA 531/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2023AY 2012-13
Section 147Section 154Section 239Section 240Section 263Section 282A

holding that the order u/s147/143(3) dated 26.02.2018 passed by AO pursuant to directions of AAR was erroneous and prejudicial to interest of Revenue. 2.2 That the Learned CIT while holding that the impugned order is erroneous has erred in concluding that AO failed to enquire/ examine the correctness ... such, impugned order is contrary to law and hence, unsustainable. 3. That the Ld. CIT has erred in holding that impugned order was erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue without conducting any independent enquiry or application of mind. 4. That the Ld. CIT while holding that impugned order

Dipankar Mohan Ghosh, New Delhi vs. CIT-1, New Delhi

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

ITA 277/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2023AY 2012-13
Section 147Section 154Section 239Section 240Section 263Section 282A

holding that the order u/s147/143(3) dated 26.02.2018 passed by AO pursuant to directions of AAR was erroneous and prejudicial to interest of Revenue. 2.2 That the Learned CIT while holding that the impugned order is erroneous has erred in concluding that AO failed to enquire/ examine the correctness ... such, impugned order is contrary to law and hence, unsustainable. 3. That the Ld. CIT has erred in holding that impugned order was erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue without conducting any independent enquiry or application of mind. 4. That the Ld. CIT while holding that impugned order

M/S Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., E-8, Epip Riico Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 260/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 30Section 44

order passed by Ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act holding that assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dt. 01.03.2021 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue in as much as disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r8D(2) of the Act has not been considered by AO ignoring that this ... Where two views are possible and the AO has taken one view, the assessment order cannot be treated as erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. This is for the reason that while exercising the revisionary jurisdiction, the CIT is not sitting in appeal. In the instant case

Sbi Dfhi Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir-2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1431/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Aditya RamachandranFor Respondent: Shri Dr. KIshor Dhule
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 80GSection 80G(2)(iv)Section 80G(5)

learned Pr. CIT, Mumbai-2 has erred in holding that the reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, without appreciating the fact that mere adopting of one view out of two possible views based on the specific inquiries conducted ... Assessing Officer before accepting the claim of the Appellant made under Section 80G of the Act. The Assessment Order, dated 22/01/2021 was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Therefore, the PCIT erred in exercising powers of revision under Section 263 of the Act. In this regard

Narendra Kumar Sahoo, Dhenkanal vs. Principal CIT-2, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 231/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2014-15 Sri Narendra Kumar Sahoo, Sri Narendra Kumar Sahoo, Vs. Income Income Tax Tax Officer, Officer, At/Po: At/Po: Gandia, Gandia, Dist: Dist: Dhenkanal Ward, Dhenkanal Dhenkanal Ward, Dhenkanal Denkanal. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Bgcps 4276 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar P.K.Mishra, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 26 /0 06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/0 /06/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)
Section 143(3)Section 263

bank account. Where the view has been consciously taken by the Assessing Officer unless it is shown that the view is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, the powers u/s.263 of the Act cannot be invoked. In the present case, the Assessing Officer was very well aware

Sachin Notified Area, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat - 1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 343/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.343/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Sachin Notified Area, Vs. The Pcit, Surat-1 Plot No.5719, Unnati Building, Sachin Gidc, Sachin, Surat-394230. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaals0146H Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Appellant By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 31/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2023

Section 143(3)Section 263

setting aside the assessment order framed u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act without pointing out as to how the order is erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue. 8. It is therefore prayed that the above proposed proceedings may please be revoked as learned members of the tribunal ... other sources, and the assessee has not paid the taxes thereon, therefore to that extent, the order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Such issue has not been merged with order of CIT(A). The interest on fixed deposit of Rs.4

Rajendra Raja Bali Singh, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax-17, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1263/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.1263/मुं/ 2023 ("न.व.2018-19) Rajendra Raja Bali Singh, V Aswani Mansions, 120, Dhinshaw Vacha Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aavps-0558-E ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,Mumbai -17 Room No.120, 1St Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, G.Block, Bkc, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri K.Gopal ,Advocate. ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Smt. Riddhi Mishra –Cit Dr सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 22/06/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/06/2023 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri K.Gopal ,AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra –CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 263

Assessing Officer “ is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue”. Thus, the twin conditions viz. order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue have to be fulfilled before entering the arena of revisional jurisdiction. In the instant case, the PCIT has exercised ... powers on the ground that the Assessing Officer has failed to examine assessee’s claim of business expenses, hence, the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 7. After examining the documents on record, we are of considered view that the PCIT has rightly exercised jurisdiction

Smt. Parminder Kaur Brar, Kotkapura vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Amritsar

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

ITA 72/ASR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 263oSection 54

learned Pr. CIT, Bathinda erred in revising the assessment order Dated 14.12.2018 passed by the AO, Ward 3(3), Faridkot which was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to interest of revenue. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Pr.CIT erred ... I.T.A. No.72/Asr/2022 3 Assessment Year: 2011-12 the assessment proceedings and thereafter should have given a finding that the assessment order as erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. So, the revision order is liable to be quashed. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances

Vile Parle Prarthana Chsl, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1153/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Rahul Chaudhary: A.Y : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

respect of the interest income earned from deposits kept with co-operative bank is not correct and hence the assessment order is rendered erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Accordingly, the ld. PCIT set-aside the assessment order and directed the Assessing Officer to do assessment ... deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act is a possible view and hence the impugned assessment order cannot be considered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Accordingly, he contended that the impugned revision order passed by the ld. PCIT is liable to be quashed

Shri Bhawani Shankar Parashar, Indore vs. The DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), Indore

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 411/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

Section 263

under section 55A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 even when the assessment order as passed by the Assessing Officer was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... 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. 14. Ld. AR has relied