← 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

Sericulturists Cum Farmers Service Co-Operative Society Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 425/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Sericulturists Cum Farmers Service Co-Operative Society Ltd., The Principal 01Sfcs Building, Commissioner Of Near Bus Stop, Income Tax – 2, Sarjapura Town, Bengaluru. Vs. Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru – 562 125. Pan: Aaaas6468H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Ranjan, Ca Revenue By : Shri Praveen Karanth, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/03/2022 Passed By Ld.Pr.Cit-2, Bangalore U/S. 263 Of The Act Relating To A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. Tax Effect Relating To Grounds Of Appeal Each Ground Of Appeal The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bengaluru-2 ("Pr. Cit") Dated 30-Mar-2022, Passed Under I. Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ("The Act") N.A Insofar It Is Against The Appellant, Is Opposed To The Law, Weight Of Evidence, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Ranjan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57Section 68Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

cost of funds in accordance with section 57 of the Act. The Learned Pr.CIT erred in treating the original assessment order as "erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue" XIV merely on the ground that his view is different from that of the Learned Assessing Officer. The aforesaid grounds ... necessary inquiries and has not made the additions required as per law. Considering these facts, the assessment order is Page 6 of 10 erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue in terms of section 263. 19. This view is supported by the following judicial decisions: 1. Malabar Industrial

M/S Southern Tpetrochemical Industries Corpration Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 232/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.232/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S.Southern Petrochemical V. The Income Tax Officer, Industries Corporation Ltd., Corporate Ward-3(1), 88, Spic House, Mount Road, Chennai. Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan:Aaacs 4668 K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. &
Section 115JSection 143Section 263

circumstances of the case. 2. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s.263 and holding that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue merely M/s.SPIC Ltd. :: 2 :: because the decision of the Assessing Officer is not inconsonance with the view ... ought to have appreciated that if the assessing officer has taken one of the two possible views it cannot be termed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. [Malabar Industrial Co. (vs) CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC)] 3. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax ought to have held

Abhilasha Venture, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 1027/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleabhilasha Venture Vs. Principal Commissioner A/35, Patil Bhuvan, Of Income Tax- 17, N.S.B Road, Mumbai-400051 Mulund (West), Mumbai-400080 Pan No. Aanfa5123H Appellant Respondent

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23Section 263Section 3

learned CIT erred in holding that the order dated 26.12.2019 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue although the same was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances ... closing stock of flats. Hence, the Pr.CIT is of the opinion that the order passed by the Assessing officer (A.O.) is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and issued notice under Section 263 of the Act dated 03.03.2022. Since, there was no compliance by the assessee

S.Seetharaman, Madurai vs. PCIT-1, Madurai

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

ITA 1546/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1546/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Mr.Guru Bashyam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 245D(4)Section 263Section 269SSection 269T

Sec.269SS or Sec.269T of the Act. Accordingly, the PCIT revised the assessment and passed revision order by holding that the assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Aggrieved, the assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Before us, the ld.Counsel for the assessee filed copy

Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 737/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2022AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 263Section 3Section 35

passed against the original assessment order and hence, non-examination of the claim u/s 35(2AB) properly has rendered the original assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. 5. The Ld A.R, in the rejoinder, submitted that the AO has already examined capital expenditure in the reassessment

Sivakumaran Pugazhendhi, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai-4

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 27/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.27/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sivakumaran Pugazhendhi, The Principal Commissioner 70 Raja Agraharam Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Poonamalle, Chennai-4. Chennai – 600 056. [Pan: Aiapp-7309-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2022 : 21.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

assessment was completed by the A.O on 28.12.2016. She argued, without conceding, but if the facts are that the A.O’s order is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of Revenue i.e., only the original assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act order dated 28.12.2006. She stated that ... should have looked into this aspect which was not considered by the A.O and hence, the reassessment order is actually erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Ld. CIT-DR hence, supported the order of the PCIT revising the assessment. 10. We have considered rival submissions

Velayutham Pillai Giri, Chennai vs. It-Ncw22(1), Chennai

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

ITA 179/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

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

Vile Parle Mahila Sangh, Mumbai-400057 vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai-400026

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1066/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blevile Parle Mahila Sangh V. Cit (Exemptions) Mangalayatan, Paranjpe B Scheme Room No. 601, 6Th Floor Road No. 1, Vile Parle (E) Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road Mumbai - 400057 Dr. Gopal Rao Deshmukh Marg Cumballa Hill, Mumbai – 400026 Pan: Aaatv2407Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Mandar Vaidya Department Represented By : Achal Sharma

Section 11(2)Section 119(2)Section 12ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 263

assessment order. Thus, the AO passed order without the basic verification of the above facts and therefore, the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3. In view of the above, may I request you to show cause why the assessment order made ... which 11 Vile Parle Mahila Sangh is with definite tax implications and Assessing Officer has framed the order which is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue within the meaning of section 263 of the Act. Accordingly, he directed the Assessing Officer to reframe the Assessment Order

Charoen Pokphand Seeds India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-2, Bengaluru

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 509/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Charoen Pokphand Seeds India The Principal Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 1021/1, Service Income Tax, Road, Gitanjali Layout, Bengaluru – 2, Hal Iii Stage, Vs. Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 075. Pan: Aaccc3259N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri C. Ramesh, Ca : Shri Praveen Karanth, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of The Order U/S. 263 Dated 15.03.2022 Passed By The Ld.Pr.Cit, Bengaluru – 2, Bengaluru For Assessment Year 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Appellant Objects To The Revision Order Passed U/S. 263 On The Following Grounds In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The As It Is Opposed To Law & Circumstances Of The Case: - Originally The Appellant Has Taken Only One Ground Relating To Deduction U/S.35(2Ab). The Following Grounds Were Not Taken By Oversight. Hence The Appellant Is Filing Revised Grounds Of Appeal As Mentioned Below.

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CA
Section 10(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

concluded by Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1) Bengaluru for the assessment year 2017-18 on 23-12-2019 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue for the following reason(s); 2. It is seen that scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) in your case

Haris Kalandan Mohammed, Mangaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on merits

ITA 435/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Haris Kalandan Mohammed, The Principal D.No. 23-10-810, Commissioner Of Umay Bagh, Income Tax 1St Cross, [Central], Yemmekere, Vs. Bengaluru. Mangaluru – 575 001. Pan: Abjph9234P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Praveen Karanth, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 22/03/2022 Passed By Ld.Pr.Cit U/S. 263 For A.Y. 2018-19 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of Revision Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Central], Bengaluru, Under Section 263 Of The Act Dated 22/03/2022, In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Not Justified In Law & On Facts To Set Aside The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 263Section 68

Since the AO failed to tax the commission income u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE of Income Tax Act, the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue and I propose to invoke the provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act. 7. In this regard ... possible and the Income- tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. It has been held

Bashir Ahmed Abdurrahman Matte, Belagavi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Belagavi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

justified in law in invoking the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act and setting aside the order of the AO, as being "erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue", which is contrary to fact, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The order passed under ... justified in appreciating that the provision of section 263 of the Act shall be attracted only when the order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and since the order passed under section 143(3) of the ITA Nos.6 & 7/Bang/2021 Page

Navunda Abdulla Badruddin, Udupi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bangalore

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

ITA 508/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Navunda Abdulla Badruddin Vs Pcit, Central O Thuwfeeq Manzil C.R. Building, Queen'S Road Maski Navunda, Kundapur Bengaluru 560001 Udupi 576224 Pan – Aevpa6893G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 14/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax(Pcit) U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (The Act), Bangalore In Appeal No. 263/Pr.Cit(C)/2001-02 Dated 28.03.2022 For Ay 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Order Of Revision Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Central], Bengaluru, Under Section 263 Of The Act Dated 28/03/2022, In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Not Justified In Law & On Facts To Set Aside The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143[3] R.W.S. 153D Of The Act Dated 19/12/2019 & Direct

For Appellant: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 153DSection 263Section 69C

should be taxed under Section 115BBE of the Act. To this extent the PCIT considered the order of the AO to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and in this regard issued show cause notice to the assessee u/s.263. The assessee submitted that the subject addition ... 115BBE of the Act and since the AO is did not enquire or verify the said expenditure the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue to that extent. 7. Before us the learned A.R. reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities. The learned

M/S. Janatha Fish Meal & Oil Products, Udupi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Bengaluru

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

ITA 489/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms.Padmavathy S.M/S. Janatha Fish Meal & Vs Pcit, Central Oil Products C.R. Building D.No. 1-4(9), Manur Fisheries Queen'S Road Road, Kota, Post Kota Bengaluru 560001 Udupi 0576221 Pan – Aaefj1257G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, Advocte Revenue By: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 14/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Appeal Is Against The Revision Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 28.03.2022 Passed For Ay 2018-19 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Pcit) Bangalore.

For Appellant: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, AdvocteFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 153DSection 263Section 269Section 269SSection 69C

erroneous prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The CIT himself has to undertake some enquiry to establish that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The ld. Counsel relied on the decision of M/s. Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd., v. PCIT in ITA No.3205/Del/2017 ... aforesaid two companies and such view of the Assessing Officer is a plausible view, and therefore, the same cannot be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.” 14. The SLP against the above order of the Hon’ble High Court was dismissed

Shree Aniruddha Upasana Foundation, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 706/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shree Aniruddha Upasana Cit (Exemption), Foundation, 601, 6Th Floor, Cumballa Hills Flat No. 702, Link Apartment, Vs. Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Tps Iii, Khari Village, Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Khar (West), Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400052. Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaics 9217 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Snehal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/09/2022

For Appellant: Snehal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT-DR
Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

income and such a view, being a accepted the returned income and such a view, being a plausible view cannot be considered as erroneous or prejudicial plausible view cannot be considered as erroneous or prejudicial plausible view cannot be considered as erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue ... order of the Assessing Officer was held to be erroneous Commissioner and the order of the Assessing Officer was held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In this regard, it may be pointed out and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In this regard

Hariyappa Kotian, Udupi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 430/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Hon’Ble & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR)
Section 139Section 143Section 153DSection 263

secondly and it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. He submitted that the order passed by the AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and he relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mallabar Industrial Company ... similar issue. 9. The ld.DR relied on the order of the lr.Pr.CIT and he submitted that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The AO while passing the assessment order has not conducted proper enquiry as required by him for substantiating

Thirumala Green Power Enterprises Private Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the

ITA 194/CHNY/2021[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. Guru Bashyam, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 & 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 28.12.2018 for both the assessment years should not be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The Principal CIT had given opportunity to the assessee to file written submissions through e-mail

Thirumala Green Power Enterprises Private Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the

ITA 193/CHNY/2021[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Sept 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. Guru Bashyam, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 & 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 28.12.2018 for both the assessment years should not be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The Principal CIT had given opportunity to the assessee to file written submissions through e-mail

Rajaram Gokula Kannan, Salem vs. The ACIT, Circle-1, Salem-7

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in I

ITA 131/CHNY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. M. Rajan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50C

stamp valuation authority as the deemed full value of the consideration has erred and hence rendered the order of the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue. The order of the Assessing Officer, u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 dated 10.12.2018 is hereby set aside in exercise of the powers vested with me under

ITO 2(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Zensar Technologies Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 955/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannuand Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Das
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 80HSection 92C

deduction allowed under section 10A of the Act. 4. The learned CIT, accordingly, set aside the assessment order treating it to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and directed the Assessing Officer to give effect to its directions. As a result, the Assessing Officer passed ... vide revision order passed under section 263 of the Act set aside the assessment order on this issue treating the same to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Accordingly, vide order passed under 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act, the Assessing Officer reduced the deduction

Zensar Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 276/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannuand Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Das
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 80HSection 92C

deduction allowed under section 10A of the Act. 4. The learned CIT, accordingly, set aside the assessment order treating it to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and directed the Assessing Officer to give effect to its directions. As a result, the Assessing Officer passed ... vide revision order passed under section 263 of the Act set aside the assessment order on this issue treating the same to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Accordingly, vide order passed under 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act, the Assessing Officer reduced the deduction