← 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

M/S. Mindtree Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 988/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 263

subsequently initiated revisionary proceedings by issuing notice u/s. 263 of the Act holding the assessment to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue to the extent that provision for bad debts and the disallowance u/s. 14A were not considered while computing the book profits u/s. 115JB

Kantharajapura Ramaiah Ananthababu, Mysuru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-3, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 491/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143Section 263

income by the assessee. 3. The PCIT on verification of assessment records was of the view that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue for the following reasons:- Page 5 of 12 1. Failed to verify the sources of cash deposits made ... assessee’s case has substituted his views with respect to the verification of various details and has held the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The ld. AR in this regard relied on the decision Gabriel India

M/S. Barbeque Nation Hospitality Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, all three appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 488/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Madhusudan, U.A., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

accept the contentions of the assessee and to extent of the above two items the PCIT treated the order of assessment as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and therefore set aside the order of assessment passed by the AO by invoking clause (a) to Explanation

M/S. Barbeque Nation Hospitality Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, all three appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 487/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Madhusudan, U.A., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

accept the contentions of the assessee and to extent of the above two items the PCIT treated the order of assessment as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and therefore set aside the order of assessment passed by the AO by invoking clause (a) to Explanation

M/S. Barbeque Nation Hospitality Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, all three appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 486/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Madhusudan, U.A., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

accept the contentions of the assessee and to extent of the above two items the PCIT treated the order of assessment as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and therefore set aside the order of assessment passed by the AO by invoking clause (a) to Explanation

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore vs. M/S. Mindtree Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1029/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 263

subsequently initiated revisionary proceedings by issuing notice u/s. 263 of the Act holding the assessment to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue to the extent that provision for bad debts and the disallowance u/s. 14A were not considered while computing the book profits u/s. 115JB

Wonder Laminates Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-5, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 316/KOL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 316/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Wonder Laminates Pvt. Ltd. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-5, C/O. Subash Agrawal & Vs Kolkata Associates, Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213 2Nd Floor Kolkata – 700069 [Pan : Aaacw2197D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Biswanath Das, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/11/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16 /12/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 5, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 30/06/2020, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Though The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Appeal Is Time Barred, However, In View Of The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Miscellaneous Application No. 665 Of 2021 In Smw(C) No. 3 Of 2020, The Period Of Filing Appeal During The Covid-19 Pandemic Is To Be Excluded For The Purpose Of Counting The Limitation Period. In View Of This, The Appeal Is Treated As Filed Within The Limitation Period.

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT D/R
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

showcause as to why the assessment framed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act should not be revised on the ground of being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Finally, the ld. Pr. CIT revised the assessment only with respect to share capital received of Rs.10 ... possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, the assessment order cannot be treated as erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law. 7.3. In the case of Gabriel

Skyline Millars Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr. Comm of Income Tax, Mumabi 6, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is fully allowed

ITA 776/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalskyline Millars Ltd. 24 Po Box No. 9208, Kurla Kirol Road, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086. Pan: Aaact2755J ...... Appellant Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-6, Room No. 501, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Dalpat Shah, Ca Respondent By : Sh. Rakesh Garg, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-6, Mumbai Dated 31.03.2022 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) For A.Y. 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Order U/Sec. 263 Of The Income Tax Act Is Bad-In-Law.

For Appellant: Sh. Dalpat Shah, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rakesh Garg, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

holding that the Assessment Order U/Sec. 143(3) dated 07.02.2019 passed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income tax-14(3)(2), Mumbai is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, ignoring the fact that the appellant had reconciled income as per Form 26AS during the course of assessment ... order U/Sec. 263 is bad in Law, invalid and void as the assessment order U/Sec. 143(3) was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that Assessee Company is in the business of development of property and manufacturing industry having

M/S. C & E Ltd., Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 4, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 636/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(2)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 80I

aside to the AO to judge whether it is erroneous and at the same time he opined that order passed by AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest to the revenue. 7. That the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in law and in fact as because ... remanded the issue to the AO and before that he cannot form an opinion that the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue which is self contradictory.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in leather

M/S. Aconite Commotrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 9(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2106/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 263

case of assessee on 19.12.2011. Soon after, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -3, Kolkata held that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue on the ground that requisite enquiry was not done regarding identity and creditworthiness of the shareholders through which the introduction

Vighnaharata Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1284/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Vighnaharata Trust Cit (Exemption) 1605/06 Hurrah, City Of Joy, Room No-617, 6Th Floor, Near Railway Station, Lbs Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Vs. Marg, Mulund West, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai- 400 012 400 080 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatv8040K Assessee By : Shri. Rajeev Khandelwal Revenue By : Shri. Achal Sharma Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri. Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri. Achal Sharma CIT DR
Section 10Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 292B

considered the explanation of the assessee and held as per order dated 22.03.2021 that the order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial, to the interest of the revenue for following reasons:- “Hence, the sum and substance of the above judicial pronouncements is to ascertain whiter

Sanjay Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Thane vs. The Pr. Comm of Income Tax 1, Thane

In the result we allow the ground no

ITA 740/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalsanjay Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Sanjay Society Building, Uttam Naka, Bhayander, Thane-401106. Pan: Aacas3872P ...... Appellant Vs. Pcit-1, Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Indl. Estate, Thane-400604. ..... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Dr. Ravindra Nagesh Naik, Ca Respondent/Revenue By : Sh. Kailash Kanojia- Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/12/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 19061 [For Short ‘The Act’] Vide Order Dated 17.03.2022 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Pcit-1, Thane Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Appreciating That All The Details/ Information Relating To Interest Income Were Submitted During The Scrutiny

For Appellant: Dr. Ravindra Nagesh Naik, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kailash Kanojia- CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

were duly verified by the learned AO and such order u/s 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2 The Ld. PCIT-1. Thane has erred in law and on facts in considering the income earned ... acceptable. In view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements mentioned supra, the order passed by the AOs is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and therefore, it is requested to drop/withdraw the above objection." The CIT (Audit), Pune vide letter dated 17.02.2022 did not accede to withdraw

Century Textiles and Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax – 6(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2085/MUM/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2022AY 2009-2010
Section 80Section 801ASection 80I

supply electricity to other consumers and the AO having accepted the same after due enquiry, the assessment cannot held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. More over the determination of market value by adopting the aforesaid method can very well be considered

Asst Comm of Income Tax -6(1) (1), Mumbai vs. Century Textiles and Industries Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1967/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2022AY 2011-12
Section 80Section 801ASection 80I

supply electricity to other consumers and the AO having accepted the same after due enquiry, the assessment cannot held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. More over the determination of market value by adopting the aforesaid method can very well be considered

Rocksalt Interactive Games Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 403/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarm/S. Rocksalt Interactive Income Tax Officer, Vs. Games Pvt. Ltd., Ward 3(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan Aafcr3033A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. Respondent By : Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.12.2022 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dt.30.03.2020 Of The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Cit-3, Hyderabad Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 263Section 72Section 73Section 73ASection 74Section 74ASection 80

shareholding has occurred in AY. 2009-10. exercising the powers u/s. 263 in AYs. 2011-12 and 2012-13, holding the orders as erroneous and prejudicial to revenue is not appropriate." 10 9. Admittedly, the revenue has not initiated any proceeding for the assessment year 2014-15 under the Income ... examination of the record, it comes to the notice of the ld.PCIT that the order passed by the assessing officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In the case in hand, we do not find any reason to hold that the order passed by the assessing

Red Monster Mobile Pvt Ltd., Mumbai-400021 vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Mumbai-400020

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1248/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blered Monster Mobile Private Limited V. Pr.Cit –3 213, Raheja Chambers Room No. 612, 6Th Floor Free Press Journal Marg Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aagcr9963G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

above angle to verify the sources of funds utilized by the foreign investor in your share capital, the assessment can be termed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue." 3. Accordingly, notice u/s. 263 dated 28.02.2020 was issued asking the assessee why the assessment order ... prejudicial to the interest of the revenue; 3. failed to appreciate that both the pre-requisites i.e. assessment order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue are necessary to invoke the provision of section 263 of the Act and if any one condition is not satisfied, section

Dheeraj Babulal Shah, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -17, Mumbai

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

ITA 886/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledheeraj Babulal Shah V. Pr.Cit – Mumbai – 17 C/O. D.C. Bothra & Co.Llp (Ca) Room No. 120, 1St Floor {Formerly Known As D.C. Bothra & Co.} Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43 297, Tardeo Road, Wille Mansion G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 1St Floor, Opp. Bank Of India Nana Chowk, Mumbai - 400007 Pan: Arwps1458D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Rajkumar Singh Department Represented By : Shri S.H. Usmani

Section 1Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

entry operator for providing the 7 Dheeraj Babulal Shah accommodation entry by the assessee. Accordingly, he held that Assessment Order passed is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, even on this count. Accordingly, he directed the Assessing Officer to conduct the requisite enquiries to arrive

M/S. S vs. Constructions, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 271/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri G. Sathyanarayana, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(2)

advances received towards purchase of land and the reasons for write off. To this extent, the PCIT considered the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and accordingly issued a show cause notice to the assessee. The assessee submitted that during the course ... relevant to impugned assessment year or not. Hence, the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 17-12-2019 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue u/s 263 of IT Act. 4.1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Deniel Merchants

The Peria Karamalai Tea & Produce Co.Ltd., Coimbatore vs. The DCIT, Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore

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

ITA 189/CHNY/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(2)Section 80I

have held that the order of the AO “under consideration", u/s 143(3) rws 147 of the Act, dated 24.12.2018, was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. (3) The learned PCIT ought to have held ... error. 4. For the above mentioned reasons, the assessment order made u/s.147 r.w.s. 143 (3) for the A.Y.2014-15 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 necessitating

Purandar Taluka Nagari Sahakai Patpedi Maryadit, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2659/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. K.C. Salvamani, CIT DR
Section 143Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 5Section 56Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

only..Further the Pr. CIT is of the opinion that the AO has not applied his mind and passed the order which is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. We find that the assessee has challenged the revision order in the grounds of appeal that