“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

Dnyanshwar Nivruti Talpade, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax PCIT, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1862/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharydhyaneshwar Nivrutti Vs. Principal Commissioner Talapade, Plot No. 207, Of Income Tax, 6 Th Floor, Nirmal Nagar At Post Ashar I.T. Park, Road Asangaon, Shahpur, Number 162 Nehru Nagar Shahpur Maharashtra - Wagle Ind. Estate, 421601 Thane (W) 400604 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Ackpt2532N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Riddhi Mishra

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 3Section 45Section 45(3)

learned Pr. CIT grossly erred in holding that the original assessment order passed under Section 143 (3) dated 27.12.2017 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue 2. The learned Pr. CIT failed to appreciate that the impugned assessment order dated 27.12.2017 was completed after adequate enquires ... issue and that the AO was fully satisfied with reply filed or explained and consequently the impugned assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. ITA No.1862/Mum/2022 A.Ys. 2015-16 2 Dhyaneshwar Nivrutti Talapade Vs. Pr.CIT 3. The Pr. CIT failed to conduct independent enquiry

Mahim Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Society Ltd., Thane vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Thane

In the result we allow the ground no

ITA 1177/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Anil SatheFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash mane, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P

appreciating that the provisions of the said section could be invoked only if the order sought to be revised was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Mahim Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Society Ltd. 2. The learned Pr. Commissioner of income tax erred in assuming powers and passing order u/s 263 only ... 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

Mseb Holding Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT (Hq) (Judl) to the CIT 14, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

ITA 3374/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. T. Shankar, CIT-DR

Section 253(3)Section 263

Assessment Order dated 23 March 2015 passed by the that the Assessment Order dated 23 March 2015 passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests

Mseb Holding Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

ITA 1181/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. T. Shankar, CIT-DR

Section 253(3)Section 263

Siemens Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4355/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 245CSection 245D(1)Section 245D(3)Section 245D(4)Section 263

provision for warranty’. 5. We find that the Ld.CIT had sought to revise the order passed by the Ld.AO treating it as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue in respect of another two items as under: a. Impact of provisions of section 145A ... given by the tax auditor in form 3CD in his order. Hence, we hold that the order passed by the Ld.AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue in respect of this issue of impact of provisions of section 145A of the Act. Accordingly, revisional jurisdiction

Asstt Comm of Income Tax 6(1) (1), Mumbai vs. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1886/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1886 /Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax बिधम/ Century Textiles & Industries Ltd 6(1)(1) Vs. 2Nd Floor, Century Bhavan, Room No. 504, Aaykar Bhavan, Dr Annie Besant Road, M.K.Road, Churchgate, Worli, Mumbai- 400030 Mumbai- 400020 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc2659Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. Yogesh Thar Revenue By: Shri. Asif Karmani, Sr Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri. Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri. Asif Karmani, Sr AR

Section 263Section 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. Moreover the determination of market value by adopting the aforesaid method can very well be considered

Gold Star Diamond Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2965/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nishant Thakker &For Respondent: Hemant Kumar Chimanlal

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 40(3)

Learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Act has erred in law & facts and circumstances of the case by treating the Order erroneous and prejudicial to the Interest of the Revenue u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by ignoring the fact that the Learned Assessing Officer has made full ... power under section 263(1) is in respect of an order passed by the Assessing Officer, where the order is regarded as being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Where an order passed by the Assessing Officer is subject to an appeal that has been filed

Gold Star Diamond Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2964/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nishant Thakker &For Respondent: Hemant Kumar Chimanlal

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 40(3)

M/S. Graceworks Realty & Leisure Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr. Comm of Income Tax-8, Mumbai

ITA 719/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Graceworks Realty & Pr. Commissioner Of Leisure Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax-8, 611, 6Th Floor, 462, Senapati Bapat Marg, Vs. Phoenix Mills Premises, Aayakar Bhavan, Lower Parel, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 013 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aapcg2308P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 263

specified issue and hence, the assessment order so passed by the learned A.O. u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2019 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The appellant prays that the order of the Principal CIT u/s. 263 may kindly be quashed and the assessment ... erred in holding that, the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2019 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and hence set aside the appellant case back to the Ld. A.O. for making a fresh assessment. The appellant prays

Shri Rajnish C. Bharti, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -30, Mumbai

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

ITA 311/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.311/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Shri Rajnish C. Bharti बिधम/ Pcit-30, Mumbai 506B, Rajendra Vihar Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Vs. Evershine Nagar, Malad Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To West, Mumbai-400064. C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E)-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpb6150F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri C. V. Jain Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-30, Mumbai Dated 04.03.2020 For Assessment Year 2010-11 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri C. V. JainFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

order passed by the AO u/s 147 of the Act read with 143(3) of the Act dated 30.11.2017 appears to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly Ld. PCIT issued show-cause notice to assessee, however, the assessee did not file any written-submission

The Thanjavur District Co Op Milk Producers Union Limited, Thanjavur vs. ACIT, Circle2(1), Trichy

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Allowed

ITA 404/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.404/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Thanjavur District Co Op The Principal Milk Producers Union Limited, Vs Commissioner Of Income No.1, Nanjikottai Road, Tax-1, Madurai. Thanjavur – 613006. Pan: Aaaat 0224 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By K.Meenakshisundaram - Itp Revenue By Shri M.Rajan – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Appellant Assessee Against The Order U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Act) Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Madurai-1, Dated 26/03/2022 For A.Y. 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 26/3/2022 Received By The Appellant On 1/4/2022 Is Objected To On The Following Grounds Of Appeal. 1. The Learned Principal Commissioner Madurai Erred In Setting Aside The Valid Order Passed By The Assisstant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-2(1) Trichy Dated 5/11/2019 For The Assessment Year 2017- 2018 Under Section 263 On Mere Assumptions & Presumptions That The Order Had Been Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 2. The Learned Principal Commissioner Misdirected Himself That The Valid Order Passed By The Assisstant Commissioner Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue Simply For The Reason That The

Section 263Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(e)

Trichy dated 5/11/2019 for the assessment year 2017- 2018 under section 263 on mere assumptions and presumptions that the order had been erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2. The learned Principal Commissioner misdirected himself that the valid order passed by the Assisstant Commissioner was erroneous and prejudicial

M/S. Embassy Property Developments Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Central), Bangalore

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

ITA 445/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 17Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 37

prescribed under section 263 of the Act, i.e., the order of 2 M/s. Embassy Property Developments Pvt. Ltd. the Ld. AO shall be 'erroneous' and `prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue', are not satisfied. 2.2. Without prejudice, the Impugned Order is without jurisdiction as it was ostensibly passed ... PCIT, pursuant to his examination of records. 2.3. The Ld. PCIT erred in concluding that the Assessment Order for the Impugned AY is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, without appreciating the material on record and the submissions made by the Appellant. 2.4. The Ld. PCIT grossly

Jt Comm. of Income Tax (OSD) Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Grasim Industries Limited (Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Lid), Mumbai

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

ITA 1295/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Jt. Cit (Osd), M/S. Grasim Industries Limited Central Circle-1(4), (Successor To Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd.) A-Wing, 2Nd Floor, Aditya Birla Centre, Mumbai Vs. S. K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400 030

For Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojia

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 47

inorder to revise the order passed by the A.O. issued show cause notice dated 06.03.2019, on the ground that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue on the fact that the transaction of sale of shares of Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Ltd. (ABMWL ... very well applied his mind and had sufficient evidence on record to show that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The ld. AR further to this contended that the Revenue has got a substantial case on merits. The ld. AR, on the other

Mohideen Gafoor, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 1(3), Chennai

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

ITA 137/CHNY/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri N V Narayanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

asked to show cause as to why the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act be not held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue for the reason that as per the revised computation of income, schedule 2, the assessee has claimed Rs.34.64 lakhs

Indian Co-Op Network for Women Ltd, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 104/CHNY/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Adivarahan, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Maruthu Pandian, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act and hence, the reassessment order framed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act dated 31.10.2018 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The PCIT issued show-cause notice u/s.263 of the Act and show caused, the assessee as to why the reassessment

Trafigura India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT-6, Mumbai

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

ITA 970/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaletrafigura India Pvt Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit-6 Unit No. 1101, A-Wing, 501, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Plot No. C, 66G Block, Bhavan, Mg Road, Bkc, Mumbai – 400051. Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadct3128N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agrawal.Ar Respondent By : Shri H. N. Singh. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 16.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-6, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal.ARFor Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh. CIT DR

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

that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-14(3)(1), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as AO) is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as the assessment order has been passed in accordance with applicable provisions of law and after considering ... debts. Finally the Pr. CIT is of the opinion that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and issued notice u/s 263 of the Act dated 03.03.2022. In compliance to notice, the assessee has filed the information

Hasu Exporters, Mumbai vs. Pr. Comm of Income Tax-17, Mumbai

In the result, it is held that the initiation of proceedings under section 263 on the issue of LTCG is bad and uncalled for

ITA 1441/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalehasu Exporters Vs. Pr. Cit-17 Room No. 39, 1St Floor Room No. 120, 1St 94, Kansara Chawl, Floor, Kautilya Kalbadevi Road, Bhavan, C-41 To 43, G Mumbai – 400002. Block, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabfh7119J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Himanshu Gandhi.Ar Respondent By : Smt.Madhumalti Ghosh.Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 14.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Pr.Cit) -17, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri. Himanshu Gandhi.ARFor Respondent: Smt.Madhumalti Ghosh.CIT DR

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

erred in passing the order under section 263 of the Act, in spite of the fact that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify or delete any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal ... enquiry/ nor verified the facts and is of the opinion that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and issued notice u/s 263 of the Act is read as under: 2. On perusal of the assessment records

Essel Mining & Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-Central-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3202/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Section 127(2)Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153CSection 263

PCIT by invoking his revision jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act by treating the order passed by the ld. AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue on the ground that assessee had received compensation for shortfall in guaranteed performance from Suzlon Energy Ltd amounting to Rs.22 ... aforesaid conditions of the assessee and treated the order by the ld. AO on 29/03/2016 u/s.153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue on the ground that the same was passed without making any enquiries or verification or without application

M/S Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle 3 [1], Chennai

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

ITA 353/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 353/Chny/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Tamilnadu State The Acit, Marketing Corporation Ltd., Vs. Corporate Circle 3(1), Cmda Tower, Ii, Iv Floor, Chennai. Gandhi Irwin Bridge Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. Pan: Aaact 2964P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Revision Order Passed U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-3 In Revision No.Pcit, Chennai-3/Revision-263/100000339483/2022 Dated 31.03.2022. The Assessment Was Framed By The Acit, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2014-15 U/S.143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Revision Order Passed By Pcit By Holding The Assessment Framed As Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue On Account Of Value Added Tax Paid By Assessee & Claimed As Deduction U/S.37 R.W.S. 43B Of The Act & Allowed.

For Appellant: Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 40

only issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the revision order passed by PCIT by holding the assessment framed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue on account of Value Added Tax paid by assessee and claimed as deduction u/s.37 r.w.s

M/S. Sumit Exports, Mumbai vs. The ACIT 19(3), Mumbai

ITA 645/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Sumit Export V. Acit – 19(3) Dw-5030, 5Th Floor Matru Mandir, Tardev Road D.Tower, Bharat Diamond Bourse Mumbai – 400 007 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 Pan: Aacfs3599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Rahul Sarda Department Represented By : Shri Manoj Sinha

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(14)Section 2(47)

indexed cost of acquisition worked out on the basis of financial year 1993 was incorrect and, hence, the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, he initiated revision proceedings under section 263. The Commissioner, however, set aside the order of Assessing Officer and directed