“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

Suresh Khairajani, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 20, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 193/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiand

For Respondent: Shri Hemant Kumar

Section 143(2)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

Income Tax (Pr. CIT-20} grossly erred in holding that the original assessment order passed under section.143 (3) dated 27‘ December 2017 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 3. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT-20) failed to appreciate that the impugned assessment ... that the AO was fully satisfied on the captioned matter with replies filed or explained and consequently the impugned assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. This fact can be verified by Para 8 of the Assessment Order which is reproduced below for your

Rameshwara Kudumangalore Prathamika Krushi Pattinasahakara Sanga Niyamitha, Kodugu vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kodugu

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

ITA 492/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D George, CIT(OSD)

Section 143(3)Section 260Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)

facts and circumstances and on law, the Order passed by the learned AO as on 19.12.2017 u/s 143(3) was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest on revenue and therefore the intervention by the Hon'ble Pr.CIT by invoking ITA No.492 /Bang/2021 Page 3 of 8 provisions ... deduction u/s.80P. 4. The PCIT proposed to revise the order of the AO u/s 263 stating that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The PCIT noticed that the P&L account of the assessee for the year ended 31/3/2015 reflected

B N Prasanna Kumar, Mandya vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore

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

ITA 466/BANG/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Srinivas T.Bidari, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 131Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 69A

assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the I.T.Act. Therefore, it was submitted that the assessment order was not erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue warranting interference u/s 263 of the I.T.Act. 6. The PCIT, however, rejected the contentions of the assessee and passed ... section 115BBE. 10. Therefore the assessment order passed by ITO, W-1, Mandya for AY 2017-18 on 27.12.2018 is held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and the AO is directed to revise the assessment order accordingly and also invoke penal provisions u/s 271AAC

Dr. R Sridhar, Mysuru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 691/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumuan Paite, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263oSection 50E

existing liability that had reduced the consideration received by the assessee. The PCIT, however, was of the view that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and he set aside the assessment order and directed the AO to make a fresh assessment with ... Explanation 2 talks about the order passed by the AO without making enquiries and verification is deemed to have been erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. We notice that the Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises v .ACIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del) considered

Cricket Club of India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3282/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Us:-

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

ground of complete absence of application of mind by assessing officer and thereby erred in treating order of assessment perverse erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue which is wrong an contrary to the facts of the case, the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961, and the Rules ... interest income has already been offered to tax by the appellant in the assessment proceedings and as such the order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 6.(b) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT erred

M/S. Time Technoplast Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 876/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Time Technoplast Limited V. Pr.Cit -3 2Nd Floor, 55 Corporate Avenue Room No. 612, 6Th Floor Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (E) Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai- 400072 M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaact2783J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Kabra Department By : Shri Rajesh Damor

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

rejected the contentions of the assessee and held that the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Accordingly, by exercising powers u/s. 263 of the Act he set aside the Assessment Order passed ... erred in considering the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. On the fact and circumstances of the case as well

M/S Majju Image & Brand Consultants Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 2015/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Majju Image & Brand Consultants Pvt. Ltd., The Pr. No. G1, Accolade Commissioner Of Apartments, Income Tax, Millers Road, 2Nd Cross, Bangalore – 4, Benson Town, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 046. Pan: Aaicm6586E Appellant Respondent : Shri B.S. Balachandran, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order U/S. 263 Dated 25/01/2018 Passed By Ld.Pr.Cit, Bangalore – 4 For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Revisionary Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Pcit) U/S.263 Dated; 25-01-2018 Is Opposed To The Facts Of The Case & The Law & Therefore, It Is Liable To Be Set-Aside.

For Respondent: Shri B.S. Balachandran

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

REVISION U/S.263. 2.1. The Learned PCIT failed to appreciate that the assessment order u/s.143 (3) dated; 20-06-2016, was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and issue of show cause notice u/s.263 dated; 14-11-2017, was unwarranted and unjustified. 2.2. The Learned PCIT failed ... lack of enquiry and inadequate enquiry for the purpose of revision u/s.263 and consequently, misdirected herself in concluding that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, justifying revision by her under the said section. 2.4 The Learned PCIT ought not to have failed

Adibhuta Investmen Ts Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT-3, Mumbai

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

ITA 679/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Section 14ASection 263Section 56(2)(viia)

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.” The principle which has been ... this view of the matter, the order passed by the AO cannot be considered to be 5 Adibhuta Investments Pvt. Ltd. erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order passed by ld PCIT. 8. In the result, the appeal filed

Ramanamurthy Mathod Srinivasmurthy, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 281/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263

Bangalore Page 2 of 26 2.1. The learned CIT (IT) has erred in holding the assessment order passed under section 143(3) as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue under section 263. 2.2. The learned CIT (IT) has erred in concluding that the learned assessing officer has passed ... notice that there are certain mistakes committed by the assessing officer while passing the assessment order which have made the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Facts of the case are mentioned below. 2.1 Vide agreement for purchase dated 01.04.2010 the assessee, Mr. Ramanamurthy

Saifee Burhani Upliftment Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

Accordingly, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is partly allowed with above direction

ITA 590/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil R. Padvekar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Kumar Chimanlal

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 263

upliftment trust; A.Y. 16-17 & 17-18 5. That in the absence of reasons as to how the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue the order U/S 263 is bad in law and liable to be quashed- Tax effect-Nil 6. That ... loan funds. 010. The learned CIT (E), Mumbai examined the records and found that the order of the learned Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue for reason that [1] Ld AO has not verified whether the corpus donation is on voluntary contribution

Saifee Bujhani Upliftment Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

Accordingly, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is partly allowed with above direction

ITA 589/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil R. Padvekar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Kumar Chimanlal

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 263

S. Zaveri Pharmakem P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-08, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 952/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm S Zhaveri Pharmakem Private Pr. Comm. Of Income Tax–08, Limited Room No. 611, 6Th Floor, 109, Shiv Smruti Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road, Vs. 49 Dr. Annie Besant Road, Mumbai-400 020 Worli, Mumbai-400 018 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aajcs 0402 N Assessee By : Ms. Vasanti Patel, Authorised Representative Revenue By : Shri Hemant Kumar Chimanlal Leava, Cit Departmental Representative Date Of Hearing: 05.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.07.2022

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel, AuthorisedFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Kumar Chimanlal

Section 07Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 8(2)(2), Mumbai (learned Assessing Officer) accepting the returned income of the assessee is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. S.Zaveri Pharmakem P. Ltd; A.Y. 16–17 02. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “Under the facts and circumstances ... hearing on 26th March, 2021 to show cause the assessee that why the order of assessment should not be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 06. The learned PCIT has noted in paragraph no.3 that in response to the above notice assessee submitted

M/S. Rallis India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Cicle-8(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 913/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanm/S. Rallis India Ltd Vs. Dcit, Circle – 8(1)(1) C/O Kalyaniwalla & Room No. 624, 6Th Mistry Llp, 2Nd Floor, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Esplanade House, 29, M.K Road, Hazarimal Somani Mumbai – 400020. Marg, Mumbai – 400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr2657N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Jitendra Jain.Ar Respondent By : Mr.S.N Kabra. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit) – 8, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mr.Jitendra Jain.ARFor Respondent: Mr.S.N Kabra. DR

Section 10(34)Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 2(47)Section 263Section 263eSection 80Section 801A

respect to certain primary M/s Rallis India Ltd, Mumbai. facts/claims and considered 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 dated 10.03.2021 and is read as under: 1. The assessee company ... long term capital loss(LTCL) on surrender of plot. The Pr.CIT finally observed that the order passed U/sec143(3) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and has set aside the assesseement and issued the directions to the AO for de novo assessment. The observations

Varun Khandelwal, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-2, Mumbai

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

ITA 1963/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 263

considered as expenditure incurred for earning interest income. Accordingly, learned PCIT took the view that the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Accordingly, he initiated revision proceedings under section 263 of the Act. After hearing the assessee, learned PCIT set aside ... view. Hence, the impugned revision order passed by learned PCIT should not be sustained, as the impugned assessment order cannot be termed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. 7. The Ld D.R, on the contrary, submitted the loans have been taken for the specific purpose of purchasing

Jeevan Deep Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 1439/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

completed the assessment without making necessary enquiries, which would have led to the addition. Hence the assessment order is rendered erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Accordingly, the Ld D.R contended that the impugned revision order does not call for any interference. 7. We have heard rival contentions ... 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.” The principle which has been

M/S. Anand Projects Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-2, Mumbai

ITA 813/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Anand Projects Limited V. Pr.Cit – 2 19/3, Sujata Building Room No. 344, 3Rd Floor Rani Sati Marg, Malad (East) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400097 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaact1389G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Shah Department By : Smt Shailaja Rai

For Appellant: Shri Chetan ShahFor Respondent: Smt Shailaja Rai

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

assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act. 4. Hence based on the above observation, Ld. PCIT considered that AO’s order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and issued show-cause notice u/s 263 dated 26.02.2021 to the assessee. 5. The Ld. PCIT reproduced ... just to re-examine or verify the issues already examined/veted at the assessment level. It is only when an order is erroneous and prejudicial that the section will be attracted.” 12. The submissions as above did not find favour with the Ld. Pr.CIT. According to the Ld. Pr.CIT the assessee

M/S Microland Ltd, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 1669/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Microland Ltd., The Principal Micropolis, # 236, 92/1A, Commissioner Of Konappana Agrahara, Income Tax, Electronic City Phase – 1, Bangalore -4, Bangalore – 560 100. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aabcm2704P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B.K. Manjunath, Ca : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 02-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessing Against Order Dated 16/04/2018 Passed By The Ld.Pr.Cit, Under Section 263 Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Above Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax In So Far It Is Against The Assessee Is Against The Law, Facts, Circumstances, Natural Justice, Equity & All Other Known Principles Of Law. 2. The Cit Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S 263 Without First Satisfying That The Assessment Order Suffered From An Error Which Is Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri B.K. Manjunath, CA

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

assessee as an error and such a view is against law. 5. That the CIT erred in holding that order of assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. 6. The order u/s 263 passed by the Learned CIT dt. 16.04.2018 is erroneous having regard to the facts ... issue. 7. The Learned CIT erred in setting aside the order passed u/s 143(3) dated: 30.09.2016 by the AO as erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue and directing afresh assessment. 8. The Learned CIT erred in setting aside the issue of loss on foreign exchange forwards contracts

Harish H. Gandhi, Mumbai vs. ACIT- 33 (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2603/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43C

assessment in respect of Flat No. 405. This order was sought to be treated by the ld. PCIT as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue on the ground that since the sale deed was registered in February 2014 for Rs.62,55,000/-, the ld. AO ought ... view by incorrect application of law and we hold that the order passed by the ld. AO in the instant case is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and hence there is no question of invocation of revisionary jurisdiction by the ld. PCIT u/s.263

Harish H. Gandhi, Mumbai vs. ACIT-33(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1244/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43C

Axis Cades Aerospace Infrastructure Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Bangalore-1, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 777/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)

PCIT was justified in passing Page 2 of 9 impugned order u/s. 263 of the Act holding the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and directing the AO to reframe the assessment. 3. The assessee is in the business of providing air charter ... applied his mind and concluded the assessment accepting the returned income. He therefore submitted that the order of the AO is not erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and prayed for quashing of the impugned order. He relied on the Supreme Court judgment in the case