← 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

Balmukund Sponge & Iron Pvt. Ltd., Patna vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(3), Kolkata

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1395/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 69A

exercise of his revisionary powers under section 263 of the Act held that the order of the assessing officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, in as much as the AO had not examined the addition to be made in the light of the provision ... therefore a possible view in law. 27. For the reasons given above, we hold that the orders of the AO were not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue for failure to make enquiry on the applicability of Sec. 69C of the Act. We, therefore, quash the orders

Shree Vikas Sharafi Sahkari Mandli Limited, Rajkot vs. PCIT-1 Rajkot, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 228/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 147Section 2(19)Section 263Section 80(2)(f)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(f)

PCIT erred in law as well on fact in assuming jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act and in holding assessment order has erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.” Shree Vikas Sharafi Sahkari Mandali Ltd. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its revised return ... verification to examine whether the assessee qualifies for deduction and the u/s 80(2)(f) of the Act, hence, the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial

Lunar Ceramics, Wankaner vs. PCIT-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 226/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

PCIT erred in law as well on fact in assuming jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act and in holding assessment order has erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.” ITA No.226/RIT/2025 Lunar Ceramics 3. Brief facts of the case are that Lunar Ceramics is a partnership firm ... with the department and simply accepted the assertion made by the assessee. Therefore, in view of the above, the assessment order has become erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore, the Ld.PCIT intend to initiate proceedings u/s 263 of the Act and pass a suitable order. Before passing

Tirupati Marbles, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 44(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 2126/KOL/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263

order dated 03/03/2016 u/s 263 of the Act found the assessment order dated 26/03/2004 passed under section 147/143(3) of the Act as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and set-aside the assessment Tirupati Marbles order with directions to pass fresh assessment order after examining the evidence

Tehmul B Sethna, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT (Central), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 174/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.174/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 263

bills and vouchers regarding purchase of the aforesaid gold-coins. He, therefore, set aside the impugned assessment order holding that the same as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and restored the matter to the file of the AO with a direction to pass a fresh assessment

Golden Goenka Credit Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr. CIT (Central) - 2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 787/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2021-22 Golden Goenka Credit Pvt. Ltd.……..………………….……….……….……Appellant 24 Magma House, 10Th Floor, 24, Park Street, Park Centre, W.B. – 700016.. [Pan: Aaccr3964K] Vs. Pcit (Central) -2, Kolkata…………...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. P N Barnwal, Cit - Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 05, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.03.2025 Of The Principal Cit (Central)-2, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Pcit”) Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2021–22. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2021-22 Showing Loss Of Rs.10,36,29,610/- & Deemed Total Income U/S 115Jb Of The Act At Nil. A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The Act Was Conducted On 18.12.2021 In The Cases Of Raj Group & Others By Dit(Inv.). The Return Of Income Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & After Going Over The Submission Made By The Assessee & Notices U/S 143(2) & Golden Goenka Credit Pvt. Ltd 142(1) Were Issued. However, The Assessing Officer Assessed Total Income Of The Assessee At A Loss Of Rs.10,36,29,610/- & Further Assessed The Income Of Book Profit U/S 115Jb Of The Act As Nil. The Ld. Pcit By Exercising His Revisional Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act Has Found That The Discrepancies On The Following Issues:

Section 115JSection 132Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 263

hesitation to hold that there is no reason for the ld. PCIT to hold that the order of the Assessing Officer as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. b) issue related to compensation of flat - We find that during the year, the assessee received compensation of Rs.17 ... revenue, hence, we hold that there is no reason for the ld. PCIT to hold that the order of the Assessing Officer as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. c) issue related to unsecured loan – We find that during the year, the assessee has taken a loan

Damodaram Suresh, Gobichettipalayam vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Erode

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2715/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2715/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Damodaran Suresh, The Income Tax Officer, Prop. Sumy Electronic, Vs. Ward-1(1), No.52, Main Road, Erode. Gobichettipalayam Tamil Nadu - 638 452. [Pan: Aijps3460M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.Girish Kumar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Bipin, C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri (): The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Coimbatore-1 [Pcit] Dated 09.02.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. There Is A Delay Of 198 Days In Filing This Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed Petition Along With Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating Damodaram Suresh :- 2 -: Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of The Appeal. On Perusal Of The Aforesaid Reasons In The Condonation Application, We Are Of The View That There Is Sufficient Cause For Belated Filing Of This Appeal. Hence, We Condone The Delay In Filing This Appeal & Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeals On Merits.

For Appellant: Mr.Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Bipin, C.N, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 4Section 40A(3)

ld.PCIT to invoke Section 263 of the Act. Thus, the ld.PCIT had material to form prima facie satisfaction that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial. In such circumstances, the AO was required to make detailed enquiry. Damodaram Suresh :- 9 -: The present order is passed pursuant to an order

Vaksons Metaplast Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. PCIT(Central), Delhi

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

ITA 2218/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 139Section 143Section 153Section 153CSection 234ASection 263Section 69C

stated that proceedings initiated u/s 263 of the Act holding the assessment order so passed by the Ld. AO to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, is completely against the facts of instant case of the assessee. In this regard, relevant provisions of section ... judge the action of CIT taken under section 263. (i) The CIT must record satisfaction that the order of the AD is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Both the conditions must be fulfilled. (ii) Sec. 263 cannot be invoked to correct each and every type

Vaksons Metaplast Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. PCIT(Central), Delhi

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

ITA 2217/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 139Section 143Section 153Section 153CSection 234ASection 263Section 69C

stated that proceedings initiated u/s 263 of the Act holding the assessment order so passed by the Ld. AO to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, is completely against the facts of instant case of the assessee. In this regard, relevant provisions of section ... judge the action of CIT taken under section 263. (i) The CIT must record satisfaction that the order of the AD is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Both the conditions must be fulfilled. (ii) Sec. 263 cannot be invoked to correct each and every type

Vaksons Metaplast Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. PCIT(Central), Delhi

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

ITA 2216/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 139Section 143Section 153Section 153CSection 234ASection 263Section 69C

stated that proceedings initiated u/s 263 of the Act holding the assessment order so passed by the Ld. AO to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, is completely against the facts of instant case of the assessee. In this regard, relevant provisions of section ... judge the action of CIT taken under section 263. (i) The CIT must record satisfaction that the order of the AD is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Both the conditions must be fulfilled. (ii) Sec. 263 cannot be invoked to correct each and every type

Harsh Vardhan Singh, New Delhi vs. PCIT- 12, Delhi, New Dellhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1583/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalharsh Vardhan Singh, Pcit-12, A-251, Iind Floor, Delhi. Defence Colony, Vs. New Delhi-110024. Pan-Bcnps9161A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 2Section 263

that the AO had not made any query with respect to the other imports, and therefore, the order cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue by observing that no verification of the other imports was made by the AO. He submits that during ... accordingly, the Ld. PCIT reached to the conclusion that non verification of source of the such import make the reassessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Harsh Vardhan Singh vs. PCIT 7. As has been observed above, the assessee himself accepted that

ACIT, CC, Agra vs. Hma Agro Industries Limited, Agra

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

ITA 303/AGR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhhma Agro Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Opp. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002. (Pan :Aacch0450J)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 40ASection 68

failed to examine and establish the modus operandi of bogus purchases and, thus, it was stated that the assessment being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and the assessee was asked to reply to the same. vii). The assessee submitted a detailed reply during the course of proceedings ... framed the assessment after considering the replies submitted by the assessee, the assessment order passed by the AO cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Principal CIT in exercise of his revisionary jurisdiction under

ACIT, CC, Agra vs. Hma Agro Industries Limited, Agra

ITA 302/AGR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2022-23
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 40ASection 68

failed to examine and establish the modus operandi of bogus purchases and, thus, it was stated that the assessment being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and the assessee was asked to reply to the same. vii). The assessee submitted a detailed reply during the course of proceedings ... framed the assessment after considering the replies submitted by the assessee, the assessment order passed by the AO cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Principal CIT in exercise of his revisionary jurisdiction under

ACIT, CC, Agra vs. Hma Agro Industries Limited, Agra

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

ITA 301/AGR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhhma Agro Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Opp. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002. (Pan :Aacch0450J)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 40ASection 68

failed to examine and establish the modus operandi of bogus purchases and, thus, it was stated that the assessment being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and the assessee was asked to reply to the same. vii). The assessee submitted a detailed reply during the course of proceedings ... framed the assessment after considering the replies submitted by the assessee, the assessment order passed by the AO cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Principal CIT in exercise of his revisionary jurisdiction under

ACIT, CC, Agra vs. Hma Agro Industries Limited, Agra

ITA 300/AGR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 40ASection 68

failed to examine and establish the modus operandi of bogus purchases and, thus, it was stated that the assessment being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and the assessee was asked to reply to the same. vii). The assessee submitted a detailed reply during the course of proceedings ... framed the assessment after considering the replies submitted by the assessee, the assessment order passed by the AO cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Principal CIT in exercise of his revisionary jurisdiction under

Hma Agro Industries Limited, Agra vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle, Agra

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

ITA 251/AGR/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhhma Agro Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Opp. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002. (Pan :Aacch0450J)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 40ASection 68

failed to examine and establish the modus operandi of bogus purchases and, thus, it was stated that the assessment being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and the assessee was asked to reply to the same. vii). The assessee submitted a detailed reply during the course of proceedings ... framed the assessment after considering the replies submitted by the assessee, the assessment order passed by the AO cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Principal CIT in exercise of his revisionary jurisdiction under

Bhavana Co-Op Credit Society Niyamita, Sirsi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sirsi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1074/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(i)

assessee submitted that the ld. Principal Commissioner have no power to substitute the judgement as taken by the AO and held to be erroneous and prejudicial interest to the revenue especially when the AO has taken one of the possible view. Lastly, the ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that ... essentially confine itself to examine (1) Whether the very assumption of 263 jurisdiction is valid (2) whether the PCIT’s conclusion on “erroneous and prejudicial” are sustainable in law and (3) Whether due process (opportunity of hearing, inquiry) was followed. While doing so equal importance must also be given

Gonikoppal Primary Rural Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Kodagu vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-3, Bengaluru

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1072/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(i)

assessee submitted that the ld. Principal Commissioner have no power to substitute the judgement as taken by the AO and held to be erroneous and prejudicial interest to the revenue especially when the AO has taken one of the possible view. Lastly, the ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that ... essentially confine itself to examine (1) Whether the very assumption of 263 jurisdiction is valid (2) whether the PCIT’s conclusion on “erroneous and prejudicial” are sustainable in law and (3) Whether due process (opportunity of hearing, inquiry) was followed. While doing so equal importance must also be given

Avkar Urban Co-Op Credit Society Ltd., Surat vs. ACIT Circle 3(3), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 715/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.715/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Avkar Urban Co-Op. Credit Soc. Vs. Acit, Ltd., Circle – 3(3), 113-114, Sunrise Chambers, Surat Varachha Road, Mini Bazar, Surat - 395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaaa8341B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Aakash Bakashwala, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02/12/2025

Section 143(2)Section 2Section 250Section 80Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

which is in consonance with the various decisions of the Court as a twin condition invoking section 263 as to the assessment being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue are not being fulfilled.” ITA No.715/SRT/2025/AY.2017-18 Avkar Urban Co-op. Credit Soc. Ltd. 8. We also find that

International Flavours & Fragrances India Private Limited, Chennai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

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

ITA 268/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwalla, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N., C.I.T
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 801B

capital expenditure and only depreciation thereon was allowable. He accordingly held that the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) dated 05.05.2022 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The assessment order was therefore partly set aside with a direction to the AO to make necessary inquiries ... makes it clear that the pre-requisite to exercise jurisdiction by the Id.PCIT is that the order of the AO should be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The Id.PCIT has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely, the order of the Assessing Officer sought