“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

Devendra Choksey, Bhopal vs. The Pr CIT-1, Bhopal

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 137/IND/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2016-17 Devendra Chouksey, Pr. Cit-1, Aayakar Bhawan, 20/8, Shalimar Enclave, 48, Arera Hills, Hoshangabad Near Under Bridge, E-3, Vs. Road, Bhopal 462011 Arera Colony, Bhopal 462016 Pan Abapc5311R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)

Section 263

PCIT is not validly entitled to invoke revisionary provision of section 263 of the Act alleging that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and to remit the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh/denovo assessment. 4. Further drawing our attention towards limited scrutiny assessment ... made enquiry on this issue. Therefore, the Ld. PCIT was not correct in holding that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Our conclusion also gets strong support from the orders of co-ordinate Benches of Tribunal, as relied

Shri Durga Loha Bhandar Private Limited, Muzaffarnagar vs. Pr, CIT, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 803/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Chauhan, C. A

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92C

assessment year 2015-16 holding that the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and setting aside the assessment. 2. The assessee in its appeal has raised the following ground of appeal:- “ That ... order passed by the Ld. PCIT setting aside the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act and holding the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue is bad in law.” 3. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee company filed its return

Vivek Agnihotri, Mumbai vs. ITO 16 (1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 4493/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadalevivek Agnihotri Vs. Ito – 16(1)(5), 1505/1506, Amarnath Aayakar Bhavan, Tower, Yari Road, M.K.Road, Versova, Andheri (W) Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400061. Pan/Gir No. : Adypa6052B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Kinjal Bhuta.Ar Respondent By : Mr. Ankush Kapoor.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 01.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Prcommissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-16, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Ms.Kinjal Bhuta.ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ankush Kapoor.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 50C

records and information found that the order passed by the AO under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and issued revision notice U/sec 263 of the Act dated 21-12-2018 as under: In your case ... 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 Para 3.1 to 4 of the order as under: Vivek

Shri Girishkumar Vachhraj Dholakia, Junagadh vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee(s) are dismissed

ITA 15/RJT/2021[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot02 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 14/Rjt/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Shri Jugalkishore Natwarlal Pr. Commissioner Of Dholakia, Vs Income-Tax, C/O. Chokshi Vachhraj Makanji & Pcit-1, Rajkot Co., Shishumangal Road, Gandhigram, Junagadh-362001 Pan : Abqpd 2710 D आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 15/Rjt/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Shri Girishkumar Vachhraj Pr. Commissioner Of Dholakia, Vs Income-Tax, C/O. Chokshi Vachhraj Makanji & Pcit-1, Rajkot Co., Shishumangal Road, Gandhigram, Junagadh-362001 Pan : Abupd 6245 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Jani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy:-

For Appellant: Shri Samir Jani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)

applicability of Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") upon declaring it erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue under Section 263 of the Act for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. Since the issue involved in these two appeals ... order passed by the AO for the AY 2015-16 on the issues discussed above should not be revised as it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. In the event of non-compliance, it shall be presumed that you do not have any objection to the proposed

Shri Jugalkishore Natwarlal Dholakia, Junagadh vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee(s) are dismissed

ITA 14/RJT/2021[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot02 May 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Samir Jani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)

Chandigarh Freight Carrier, Meerut vs. Pr. CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed

ITA 500/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2015-16] Chandigarh Freight Carrier Vs. Pr. Cit 329, Uttam Nagar, Gupta Colony Ghaziabad Meerut, Uttar Pradesh-250 002 Pan No. Aahfc 1874 H [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri Manish Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 263Section 40

income of the assessee firm. 3. In view of the above, the assessment order passed by the ITO, Ward-1(2). Meerut is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and may be cancelled or modified by invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Income

Sri Mandava Naresh, Vijayawada vs. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 144/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.144/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Sri Mandava Naresh Vs. Principal Commissioner Of D.No.14/9, Korukollu Income Tax Kaikalur Vijayawada Charge [Pan : Ahmpn2074J] Vijayawada (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.04.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Condonation Of Delay : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit), Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021-22/1041046029(1) Dated 19.03.2022 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”) By The Assessing Officer (Ao) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18 With The Delay Of 69 Days. The Assessee Filed Petition For Condonation Of Delay, Submitting That He Resides In A 2

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

assessment record of the assessee for the A.Y.2017-18 and noticed that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) on 23.12.2019 is prima facie, erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Ld.Pr.CIT has mentioned that “ though the case was selected for complete scrutiny, the Assessing Officer ... that the AO has compared with similar comparable cases and estimated the profit @0.75%. Hence, the order passed by the AO is not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. He, therefore, pleaded to set aside the order passed u/s 263. 6. Per contra, the Ld.counsel

Shri Sham Sunder Aggarwal, Kapurthala vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

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

ITA 17/ASR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263Section 263o

issues as per 'reasons recorded', the ld. PCIT erred in assuming the purchases of 18 parties as bogus, to hold the order as erroneous and prejudicial u/s.263. 5. That the order under appeal is wholly against law and facts of the case.” 2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee ... documents filed by the assessee which need to be verified. Therefore, the order passed by the Assessing Officer is held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The case is, therefore, set aside to the file of the A.O. for fresh assessment on the above mentioned

Dhankot Filling Station, Gurgaon vs. Pr.CIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1030/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshdhankot Filling Station, Vs. Pr. Cit, Sultanpur Road, Village Faridabad Dhankot, Gurgaon, Haryana- 122505 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaefd7291A Assessee By : Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Ca Revenue By: Sh. T. James Singson, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 20/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24/04/2023

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 271ASection 275Section 69A

cancelling the order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by holding that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, on the issue of penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Explanation ... Annexure A-II) in exercise of powers under Section 263 of the Act set aside the assessment order holding that the same was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The assessment order was cancelled by the CIT on the ground that i) the commission

State Bank of India(As A Successor to Bhaartiya Mahila Bank Limited), Mumbai vs. Principle Commissionr of Income Tax 2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1052/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1052/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18) State Bank Of India बिधम/ Pcit-2, Mumbai (As A Successor To Bhartiya Room No. 344, Aayakar Vs. Mahila Bank Limited) Bhavan, M. K. Road, Financial Reporting & Mumbai-400020. Taxation 3Rd Floor, Corporation Centre Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs8577K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ketan Ved Revenue By: Smt. Nilu Jaggi (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/01/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/04/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Bank Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-02, Mumbai Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Dated 26.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Drew Our Attention To The Additional Ground Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Wherein It Has Challenged The Validity Of Ao Passing The Order In The Name Of Erstwhile Bhartiya Mahila Bank Limited (Hereinafter “Bmbl”), Even Though, It Was Merged With M/S. State Bank Of India W.E.F. 01.04.2017 (Vide Notification Dated 22.02.2017). In This Regard, It Is Noted That From 01.04.2017, Bhartiya Mahila Bank Ltd Got Merged/Amalgamated

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Smt. Nilu Jaggi (DR)

Section 142(1)Section 263

have conducted necessary inquiries while framing the assessment order dated 05.12.2019 which omission on the part of AO makes the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue u/s 263 of the Act. And he gave show cause notice to the assessee as to why the ibid ... view adopted by the AO is clearly a possible view, and hence, the impugned action of AO cannot be said to be erroneous and/or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Moreover, it was pointed out by the assessee that tax auditor has also not reported this expense under

Vijay Anandbhai Chavda, Gondal vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Rajkot

In the result, the order passed by the PCIT u/s 263 of the Act is hereby dismissed

ITA 117/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-D.R

Section 115BSection 144Section 263Section 68

well as on facts in not considering the submissions of the appellant on the strength of which the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue and therefore, the provisions of Section 263 of the Act were not applicable to the case of the appellant ... normal rate of tax as opposed to the higher tax rate of 60% and therefore, the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. In response, the assessee submitted that the creditors represent trading liabilities and therefore cannot be taxed under section

Moin Akhtar Qureshi, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT Central Circle- 1, New Delhi

In the result, all the captioned appeals are allowed

ITA 894/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 263

wrongly assumed the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act and has grossly erred in holding that the impugned assessment orders are erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 4. We have heard the rival contentions on the facts of ITA No.891/Del/2021 for A.Y.2008-09. 5. Briefly stated the facts

Moin Akhtar Qureshi, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT Central Circle- 1, New Delhi

In the result, all the captioned appeals are allowed

ITA 893/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 263

Moin Akhtar Qureshi, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT Central Circle- 1, New Delhi

In the result, all the captioned appeals are allowed

ITA 892/DEL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 263

Moin Akhtar Qureshi, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT Central Circle- 1, New Delhi

In the result, all the captioned appeals are allowed

ITA 891/DEL/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 263

Chandra Prabha, Ghaziabad vs. Pr. CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1347/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Santanu Kanungo, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 263Section 50CSection 55ASection 64

Subsequent to the assessment so carried out, the ld. Pr.CIT perused the assessment records and observed that the re-assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue for the reason that Assessing Officer has failed to include Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) arising on a sale

Devdeep Textiles, Jetpur vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 31/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 31/Rjt/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Devdeep Textiles The Principal बनाम/ Dhoraji Road, Nr. Railway Commissioner Of Income Vs. Fatak, Jetpur, Gujarat - Tax -1 360370 Rajkot-360001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahfd7020N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Rushit Sheth, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 17/04/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 20/04/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.02.2022 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As To ‘The Act’) By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rajkot-1 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Pcit’), Arising Out Of The Order

For Appellant: Shri Rushit Sheth, A.R

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

accepted, the same cannot be reopened by exercising jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act by the Ld. PCIT finding the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 5. Ld. DR, on the other hand, failed to controvert such submissions made by the Ld. Counsel appearing ... Section 263 of the Act does not permit him to hold the order passed under Section 143(3) of the Ld. AO erroneous and prejudicial to the ITA No. 31/Rjt/2022 (Devdeep Textiles vs. Pr.CIT) A. Y. 2017-18 - 4- interest of Revenue in the instant case. In that view

Shri Yogeshkumar Shantilal Mehta, Paddhari, Dist. Rajkot (Guj.) vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 (1) (4), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 114/RJT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263

well as on facts in not considering the submissions of the appellant on the strength of which the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue and therefore, the provisions of Section 263 of the Act were not applicable to the case of the appellant ... r.w.s, 147 of the Act accepting the total income at " 2,18,190/- vide order dated 15-11-2019 and the same is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Therefore, the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer was held to be erroneous and prejudicial

Smt. Lilaben Babubhai Sakhiya, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Pr. Commr. of Income Tax-1, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 157/RJT/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-D.R

Section 263Section 45(3)Section 54B

from the assessment order under review. The order passed u/s 263 of the Act, without discussing and establishing two basic conditions as to erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue is totally unjustified on facts as also in law and deserves to be quashed, may kindly be cancelled ... from correct perspective. Accordingly, in light of the above observations, the PCIT held that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 4. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by the Principal CIT under section

Sprint Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT- 3 Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 1411/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 68

examining the issue in accordance with the circular issued by the CBDT. Accordingly, the learned PCIT took the view that the assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue and accordingly initiated revision proceedings under section 263 of the Act. After hearing the assessee, the learned PCIT concluded ... both the issues and has taken possible view of the matter. Accordingly, he contended that the impugned assessment order cannot be considered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 6. On the contrary, the learned DR submitted that the Assessing Officer has not followed the Circular issued