← 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

Smt. Sabapathy Kalaiselvi, Coimbatore vs. PCIT-1, Coimbatore

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

ITA 619/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

revising the assessment order framed by AO vide dated 13.12.2017 passed u/s.143(3) of the Act stating that the assessment is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue as the same was framed after making necessary and requisite enquiries and examination of the details. For this, assessee ... withdrawn. According to AO, the assessment order passed without making enquiry or verification for the assessment year 2015-16 by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue on the above issue. Accordingly, the PCIT after considering the submissions of the assessee held that the assessment order

Cavinkare Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1603/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1603/Chny/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Cavinkare Private Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of 12, Cavin Ville, Income Tax, Cenotaph Road, Teynampet Company Circle-I(3) Chennai-600 018. Chennai-600 034. Pan:Aaacb 3754B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R.Mohan Reddy, CITFor Respondent: 24.11.2022
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 35Section 36(1)(ii)

framed by the Assessing Officer u/s.143(3) of the Act allowing claim of deduction u/s.35(2AB) of the Act, holding the same as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue for the reason that the assessee is engaged in production of cosmetic articles listed in the Eleventh Schedule ... PCIT, on verification of assessment records noted that assessment order framed allowing claim of deduction u/s.35(2AB) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue for the reason that the assessee is not eligible for claim of deduction u/s.35(2AB) of the Act for the relevant

M/S. Croda India Company Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Pr. Comm of Income Tax, Mumbai-6

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1439/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 32Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35Section 43(6)

PCIT ignored all the contentions of the assessee and proceeded to conclude that the order passed by the ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue on the ground that there is lack of enquiry by the ld. AO with regard to the issue of depreciation

D.Jeyanandh, Chennai vs. ACIT, Tax Central 2(4), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 164/CHNY/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Sr. Appeal Numbers Assessment Appellant Respondent No Years 1

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Marudhu Pandyan (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

assessment framed by Ld. AO could not be said to be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and the twin conditions i.e., erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue to invoke the provisions of Sec.263 could not be said to have been fulfilled by revisional authority. Accordingly

D. Jeyanandh, Chennai vs. ACIT, Tax Central-2(4), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 163/CHNY/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Sr. Appeal Numbers Assessment Appellant Respondent No Years 1

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Marudhu Pandyan (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

assessment framed by Ld. AO could not be said to be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and the twin conditions i.e., erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue to invoke the provisions of Sec.263 could not be said to have been fulfilled by revisional authority. Accordingly

D.Jeyanandh, Chennai vs. ACIT, Tax Central-2(4), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 162/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Sr. Appeal Numbers Assessment Appellant Respondent No Years 1

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Marudhu Pandyan (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

assessment framed by Ld. AO could not be said to be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and the twin conditions i.e., erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue to invoke the provisions of Sec.263 could not be said to have been fulfilled by revisional authority. Accordingly

D.Jeyanandh, Chennai vs. ACIT, Tax Central-2(4), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 161/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Sr. Appeal Numbers Assessment Appellant Respondent No Years 1

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Marudhu Pandyan (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

assessment framed by Ld. AO could not be said to be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and the twin conditions i.e., erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue to invoke the provisions of Sec.263 could not be said to have been fulfilled by revisional authority. Accordingly

D.Jeyanandh, Chennai vs. ACIT, Tax Central-2(4), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 160/CHNY/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Sr. Appeal Numbers Assessment Appellant Respondent No Years 1

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Marudhu Pandyan (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

assessment framed by Ld. AO could not be said to be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and the twin conditions i.e., erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue to invoke the provisions of Sec.263 could not be said to have been fulfilled by revisional authority. Accordingly

D.Jeyandh, Chennai vs. ACIT, Tax Central-2(4), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 159/CHNY/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Sr. Appeal Numbers Assessment Appellant Respondent No Years 1

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Marudhu Pandyan (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

assessment framed by Ld. AO could not be said to be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and the twin conditions i.e., erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue to invoke the provisions of Sec.263 could not be said to have been fulfilled by revisional authority. Accordingly

D. Jeyandh, Chennai vs. ACIT Tax Central 2(4), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 158/CHNY/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Sr. Appeal Numbers Assessment Appellant Respondent No Years 1

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Marudhu Pandyan (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

assessment framed by Ld. AO could not be said to be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and the twin conditions i.e., erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue to invoke the provisions of Sec.263 could not be said to have been fulfilled by revisional authority. Accordingly

M/S K.M. Khadim & Co., Kolkata vs. PCIT-1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/KOL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 263

contended that the order passed pursuant to first order u/s 263 of the Act in the first innings is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.At the most the Ld. PCIT could have revised the assessment framed u/s 143(3) dated 26.12.2016 in which ... unlimited powers to examine the issues which could be treated an order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue but not the order passed u/s 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Act dated 23.12.2019. The ld. AR argued that, in any case, the order

P.C. Chandra Holding Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 256/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 P.C. Chandra Holding Pvt. Ltd. Pr. Cit-2, Kolkata P-37A, Nani Gopal Roychowdhury Vs. Avenue, Anada Palit Road, Kolkata- 700014. Pan: Aadcp 0094 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca Respondent By : Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Pr. Cit, Kolkata-2 Vide Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021-22/104144167(1) Dated 24.03.2022 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For A.Y. 2017-18. 2. Through This Appeal, The Assessee Has Essentially Challenged The Assumption Of Jurisdiction By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax For Invoking The Impugned Revisionary Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Act & Passing The Order Thereunder For Which, The Assessee Has Taken As Many As Eight Grounds Of Appeal Which Are Not Reproduced For The Sake Of Brevity. The Two Issues Which Have Been Considered By The Ld. Pr. Cit For The Purpose Of Invoking The Revisionary Proceedings & Referred In The Grounds Of Appeal Are (I) Deduction U/S 80G Of The Act Amounting To Rs. 20,000/- For Which No Evidence In Support Of Payment Of Donation Is Produced To Ascertain Its Veracity (Ii) Deduction U/S 80G

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 80GSection 80G(5)(vi)

well settled law that for invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act, both the conditions, that the order must be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue needs to be satisfied. This ratio stands laid down by various Hon'ble Courts. 7. Before we advert ... possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one view with which the CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law. 9. Admittedly, it is a fact

Samy Construction, Erode vs. The PCIT-2, Coimbatore

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

ITA 419/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

because the PCIT himself has recorded that daily payment is Rs.300 per day. According to him, the order of AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and once the PCIT could not establish that the assessment order is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of Revenue ... ld.CIT-DR could not controvert the above fact situation and could not make any argument as to how the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue but he relied on the revision order passed by PCIT. 7. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts

Duckwoo Autoind Pvt. Ltd., Thiruvallur vs. PCIT-1, Chennai

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

ITA 232/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.232/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Respondent: Mr.S.Maruthu Pandian, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(b)

without verification or any inquiry accepted the claim of the assessee and hence, he treated the assessment order framed by AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Hence, he set aside the assessment order and directed the AO to re-frame the assessment after allowing opportunity ... without proper diligent application of mind and enquiry, and hence in my considered opinion the assessment order so passed is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly, the assessment order is hereby set aside u/s 263 of the Act, with a direction to the Assessing Officer

P. Ananthram, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Non-Corporate Circle-2, Combatore Main Building, 63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 155/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.155/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 P. Ananth Ram, The Asst. Commissioner Of 36, West Venkataswamy Road, Vs. Income Tax, R.S. Puram, Non Corporate Circle-2, Coimbtore – 641 002. Coimbatore. [Pan: Anxpa-6262-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S. Marudhu Pandyan, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.12.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Marudhu Pandyan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

proceedings for the AY 2016-17. 4. For the above mentioned reason, the assessment order made for the A.Y.2016-17 is found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue as the order has been passed without making enquiry or verification which ought to have been made. Hence

Hindusthan Engineering & Industries Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT, Central -1, Kolkata

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

ITA 201/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma] "ी राजेश कुमार लेखा सद"य एवं "ी संजय शमा" "या"यक सद"य के सम" I.T.(Ss)A. Nos. 19 To 25/Kol/2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2015-16 M/S Hindusthan Engineering & Vs. Acit, Central, Range-1, Kolkata Industries Ltd. (Pan: Aaach 8505 Q) Appellant / (अपीलाथ") Respondent / (" यथ")

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 35

therefore the said failure on the part of the AO to make necessary enquiry or verification rendered the assessment order so framed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly a show cause notice was issued u/s 263 of the Act dated ... during the course of search in an unabated assessment. The Ld. A.R. therefore submitted that the assessment framed by the AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and consequently the revisionary jurisdiction exercised by the Ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act is invalid

Panineeys Sanskrit Colleges Trust, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemptions)-3, Hyderabad

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

ITA 220/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Panineeya Sanskrit Vs. Ito(Exemptions)-3 College Trust Aaykar Bhawan Sy.No.103, Basheerbagh Vivekananda Nagar Hyderabad-500 004 Dilsukhnagar Hyderabad-500 060

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, Sr.AR
Section 11Section 120Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Maximum Marginal Rate (MMR). 4. Subsequently, the ld.CIT(E) on examination of the record noted that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and therefore, issued a 3 ITA 220/Hyd/2022 notice u/s. 263 of the I.T.Act, the contents of which ... Nagar Hyderabad Sir, Sub: Assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 dt. 22.12.2017, for the A Y 2015-16, erroneouS being prejudicial to the interest of Revenue - Requiring revision u/s 263 of the IT Act, 1961 of the said assessment order - Show cause notice

Shashikala Gupta, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-10(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 222/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Shashikala Gupta Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 10(1) Pan:Aaspg1838N Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Darshan Jakharia, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/12/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.3.2022 Of The Learned Pr.Cit-1, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Her Return Of Income On 26.07.2017 For A.Y 2017-18 Admitting Income From House Property & Other Sources At Rs.3,66,720/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & Issues On Which The Selection Was Made Was “Large Value Cash Deposited During Demonetization Period As Compared To Returned Income”. Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Dated 9.8.2018 Was Issued & Served Electronically On The Assessee As Well As Page 1 Of 15

For Appellant: Shri Darshan Jakharia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

remained unexplained. This omission by the Assessing Officer according to the learned PCIT rendered the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dated 28.12.2019 erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. He, therefore, issued a notice u/s 263 dated 30.11.2021 to the assessee, followed by further opportunities ... views were possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one view which the CIT did not agree, it could not be treated as erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, unless the view taken by the AO was un- sustainable in law. 14. Similarly, the Hon'ble A.P High

Raja Gopal Reddy Goli, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-11(5), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Raja Gopal Reddy Goli Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 11(5) Pan:Bbwpg4389J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Smt. S. Sandhya Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 13/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/12/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 6.6.2019 Of The Learned Pr.Cit-5 Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2015-16. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under: 1. The Order Of The Ld. Pr. Cit Is Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld. Pr. Cit Erred In Holding That There Is Error In The Order U/S 143(3) Dated 19.12.2017 3. The Ld. Pr. Cit Ought To Have Considered The Facts That The Assessing Officer While Completing The Assessment U/S 143(3) Considered All The Facts & Circumstances & Arrived At The Total Income. 4. The Ld. Pr. Cit Erred In Holding That The Assessment Order Is Erroneous & Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue. 5. Any Other Ground That May Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing.“ Page 1 Of 12

For Appellant: Advocate Smt. S. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

opinion that the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer on 19-12-2017 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 6. Accordingly, he issued a show cause notice dated 8-03-2019 u/s 263 of the Income ... brought to tax. Therefore, the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 19-12-2017 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 3. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the assessment order dated 19-12-2017 passed

Vulvan Traders Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tex, Mumbai-5, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1318/MUM/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Principle Commissioner Of Vulvan Traders Private Income Tax, Limited 515, 5Th Floor, 805A, Corporate Avenue, Aaykar Bhavan, Sonawala Road, Vs. Goregaon (East) Mk Road, Mumbai-400 063 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacv1603K Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Achal Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

26th December, 2019 by the learned Assessing Officer at total income of Vulvan Traders Private Limited.; A.Y. 2012-13 ₹2,73,520/- is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 02. The assessee is aggrieved with that order and has raised effectively following four grounds of appeal ... Order passed by Income Tax Officer 13(3)(3), Mumbai u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 26th December 2019 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2. The Ld. PCIT, Mumbai-5 has erred in holding that AO has failed to make necessary enquiry