“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

Simplex Papers Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT (Cemtra)-2, Mumbai

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

ITA 174/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesimplex Papers Ltd Vs. Pr. Cit (Central) – 2 2Nd Floor, Simplex Mills 1920, Air India Bldg Compound, 30, Nariman Point, Keshavrao Khadye Mumbai – 400 021. Marg, Sant Gadge Maharaj Chowk, Mumbai – 400 011. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcs6910M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Satish Modi.Ar Respondent By : Shri Ajit K. Srivastava.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.04.2022 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)(Central-2)Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act, 1961. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That There Is A Delay Of 12 Days In Simplex Papers Ltd, Mumbai. Filing The Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal & Filed The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay. We Find The Facts Mentioned In The Affidavit Are Reasonable & Accepted. Contra, Ld. Dr Has No Specific Objections. Accordingly The Delay Is Condoned & Admit The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri. Satish Modi.ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajit K. Srivastava.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Pr.CIT has erred in set aside the order u/s 143(3) of the Act, which does not satisfy the twin conditions of erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and direct the A.O to do afresh assesseement. The Ld.AR submitted that the explanation

Sehorse Mercantile Co. P Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-6, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed as above

ITA 1286/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 263

passing revision order without satisfying the conditions laid down u/s. 263 of the Act and without appreciating that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2. The Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax has erred in law and in facts in directing the assessing ... concluded. In light of the facts that emerged later as discussed earlier, the assessment order for A.Y. 2016-17 is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. There is no possibility of two or more valid views on the very genuineness of the business of the assessee

M/S. Darshan Construction, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 21, Mumbai

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

ITA 1793/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1793/Mum/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ M/S. Darshan Construction Pcit-21 Room No.364, 3Rd Floor, B-001, Siddhivinayak Vs. Darshan, Ground Floor, J.R. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Bricha Marg, Saatrasta, Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400011. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacfd1634M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Pramod Kumar Parida & Kiran Vadher Revenue By: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.02.2019 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-21, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-21 Has Invoked The Revisional Power U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - 2. “1. Order U/S 263 Is Bad-In-Law & May Be Vacated: (I) The Id. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit) Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S. 263 Without Appreciating That The Original Scrutiny Assessment Order Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue As The Assessing Officer Had Passed The Same After Due Application Of Mind On The Basis Of Entire Materials Submitted Before Him; Therefore, The Impugned Order U/S. 263 Passed

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Kumar Parida &For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234ASection 263Section 269S

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr.CIT) erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263 without appreciating that the original scrutiny Assessment Order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue as the Assessing Officer had passed the same after due application of mind on the basis of entire materials ... reply of the assessee, the PCIT invoked the revisional power. The PCIT was of the view that the order passed by AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and accordingly invoked the revisional power u/s 263 of the Act. The assessee was not satisfied, therefore, filed

Multi Commodity Exchange of India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT (Central)-4, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 953/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Blemulti Commodity Exchange Of V. Pr.Cit –(Central)-4 India Limited 6Th Floor, Room No. 663 Cts 255, Exchange Square Suren Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Chakala Andheri (E) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400093 Pan: Aadcm8239K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Shri Tanzil Padvekar Department By : Shri Sanjeev Kashyap

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 92C

Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The Ld. PCIT - 4 erred in stating that the order passed by the Ld. AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on the ground that the Ld. AO failed to refer the case to the learned Transfer Pricing Officer ... conformity with the Ld. TPO’s order and accordingly the order passed by the Ld. AO cannot be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are illegal and bad in law and the order

Shri. Pradip Chopra, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT (C) 3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 8064/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleshri Pradip Chopra V. Pr. Cit – (C)-3 19Th Floor, Air India Building 23, Maheshwar Niketan Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Peddar Road, Mumbai - 400026 Pan: Aacpc0068J

For Appellant: Shri R.S. KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

r.w.s 147. After considering the submissions of the assesse, he held that the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue insofar that no inquiry was 3 Shri Pradip Chopra conducted to ascertain the correct income of the assesse in this

Praham India LLP, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 31, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5197/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blepraham India Llp V. Pr. Cit – 31 6Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Patel Estate, Off. Sv Road Bandra Kurla Complex Jogeshwari (W) Bandra(E), Mumbai – 400051 Mumbai - 400102 Pan: Aamfp3204H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mayur KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam

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

with respect to the information received. Hence, the Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer for the A.Y. 2014-15 is considered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue in view of the clause (a) to explanation 2 of sub-section (1) of section

M/S Rahul Raj Estates Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Central - 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3523/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Reepal TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar

Section 115JSection 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 263(1)

details of manual return while completing the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act. Since the assessment was prima-facie erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, proceedings u/s. 263 of the I.T. Act were initiated by issue of notice ... case, the learned Pr. CIT erred in holding the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act as erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue wherein additional income disclosed by the Appellant was not considered. The Pr. CIT ought to have appreciate that any further

M/S Rahul Raj Estates Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Central - 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3522/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Reepal TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar

Section 115JSection 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 263(1)

Chalk Farm Ventures P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -1, Thane

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

ITA 906/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.906/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17) बनधम/ Chalk Farm Ventures Pvt. Pcit-1 Ltd. B Wing, Ashar It Park, Vs. 6Th Floor, Wagle No.202, Delta Building, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Industrial Estate, Thane- Mumbai-400076. 400604 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcc0332A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Sanjay Parikh Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01, Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2016-17 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01 Has Invoked The Provisions U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - 2. “Ground A: Proceeding U/S 263 Of The It Act Is Invalid & Bad In Law 1. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Thane-1, (Pr. Cit) Erred In Facts & In Passing The Order U/S. 263 Without Appreciating That The Appellant Company Was Under Liquidation & No Order U/S. 263 Could Be Passed Without Giving Adequate Notice To The Liquidator Of The Appellant Company. 2. He Appellant Prays That Your Honour Hold That The Order Passed By The Ao U/S. 263 Is Bad In Law As The Same Is Passed Without Issuing Notice To The Liquidator Of The Appellant Company.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 371(1)

liquidator of the appellant company. 2 A.Y. 2016-17 Ground B : Without prejudice holding that the order u/s. 143(3) is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue 3. Without prejudice to Ground A, the learned Pr. CIT erred on facts and in law in setting aside ... order passed by the Assessing officer (AO) u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 30/10/2018 by holding that the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue because the assessment has not only been made without proper verification but not applying the relevant provisions

M/S. Ravi Foundation, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-17, Mumbai

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

ITA 884/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Arati AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar (Sr. AR)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 263(2)

subject matter of reason to believe nor the reassessment order. Hence, Ld. Principal CIT failed to appreciate that re-assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue in order to invoke revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. 3. That on the facts & circumstances ... Principal CIT has erred in not stating in the impugned order as to how the assessment order was erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as such, the impugned order directing the assessing officer to examine the issue is bad-in-law and liable to be quashed

Hubtown Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT (Central)-4, Mumbai

ITA 696/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M.Balaganeshआअसं.696/मुं/2021(िन.व. 2015-16) Hubtown Limited, Cts No. 469A, Hubtown Seasons, 1, R.C. Marg, Chembur (East), Mumbai-400071. Pan: Aaaca6101D ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Pcit (Central), Room No. 663, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Vijay Mehta "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Purushottam Tripuri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 01/02/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26/04/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-4, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Pcit’] Dated 30.03.2021 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Sh. Purushottam Tripuri, CIT-DR

Section 263Section 80I

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 interest of the revenue, unless the view taken by the Income- tax Officer is unsustainable in law.” 10. The twine conditions sine ... officer. In other words, section 263 mandates two pre- conditions to be complied before coming to the conclusion that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. These two primary conditions are, (i) examination of records by the PCIT/CIT, and (ii) consideration by the PCIT/CIT

Mr. Raul A. Rodrigues, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -27, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 38/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri Ruturaj GurjarFor Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 80ASection 80I

invoking powers under s 263, when the 2 ITA No.38/Mum/2021 A.Y.2015-16 Mr. Raul A. Rodrigues Vs. Pr.CIT-27 said assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. (2) The learned CIT erred in passing the order u/s 263, by relying on irrelevant material ... office premises is passed without any enquiry or verification by the assessing officer, therefore, order of the assessing officer is deemed to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue to the extent of requirement to examine the aforesaid two issues. Therefore, we uphold the impugned order

Centre for the Study of Social Change, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for parity of reasons

ITA 676/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआअसं. 675/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2015-16) आअसं. 676/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2016-17) Centre For Study Of Social Change, F-Block, Plot No.6, T.P.S.Road, 12, Opp. Government Colony, Building No.326, Bandra(E) Mumbai -400 051 Pan: Aaatc-2555L ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemptions), 617, 6Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Parel, Mumbai 400 012. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Anil Sathe ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Jacinta सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 25/01/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/04/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Anil SatheFor Respondent: Ms. Jacinta

Section 12ASection 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)(b)Section 263

manner erroneous. For invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act twin conditions i.e. the assessment order should be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue should be satisfied. If any one of the above conditions are not met, the assessment order cannot be a subject matter

Centre for the Study of Social Change, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for parity of reasons

ITA 675/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Anil SatheFor Respondent: Ms. Jacinta

Section 12ASection 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)(b)Section 263

Tmf Holding Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -1, Mumbai

ITA 1628/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bletmf Holdings Ltd., V. Pr.Cit – 1 {Formerly Known As Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,} 3Rd Floor, Room No. 330 10Th Floor, 106 A & B Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Maker Chamber-Iii Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Aacct4644A (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Nikhil Tiwari Assessee By : Department By : Shri S.N. Kabra

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 47

directing the Assessing Officer for conducting fresh enquiry without justifying that the order passed by the Assessing officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to interest of revenue; 6. erred in making revision under section 263 of the Act by setting aside entire original assessment order and directing Assessing Officer ... satisfied: 13. Provisions of section 263 can be invoked only in a case where following twin cumulative conditions (i.e. order being 'erroneous' and 'prejudicial to interest of Revenue' are cumulatively satisfied. The said proposition has been held by various High Courts! Supreme court in various decisions as under: • Malabar Industrial

Hdb Employees Welfare Trust, Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT -20, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 744/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 5(3)Section 56Section 57

order u/s. 263 of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ITA, 1961) without appreciating that the scrutiny assessment order dated 20/12/2017 was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2. Learned Pr. CIT - 20, Mumbai erred in law and on facts in treating the Assessment Order ... being erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue u/s. 263 of The ITA, 1961 without appreciating that, the learned AO has passed the Assessment Order u/s. 143(3} of The ITA, 1961, after application of mind & on due inquiries and after requisite verification. 3. Learned Pr. CIT - 20, Mumbai erred

The Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 950/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.950/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ The Indian Hotels Company Pcit-1 Room No.330, 3Rd Floor, Ltd. Vs. 9Th Floor, Express Towers, Aayakar Bhavan, Barrister Rajini Patel Marg, Maharishi Karve Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact3957G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri K. K. Ved Revenue By: Shri Surendra Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01 Has Invoked The Revisional Power U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “Re.: Validity Of Order U/S, 263; On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order Dated 31 March 2021 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. Without Prejudice To The Above, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (“Pcit”) Has Erred In Passing The Order Dated 31 March 2021 U/S. 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri K. K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263Section 36

passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 2(3X2) (““ACIT”) u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Act was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue and therefore the revision of the same by the PCIT ... details/ documents sought from the Appellant during the course of assessment proceedings, and hence, the assessment order passed by ACIT is neither „erroneous‟ nor „prejudicial‟ to the interest of the revenue. 1.2.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant submits that the order passed

Piramal Investment Opportunities Fund, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, Range-20, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 700/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 700/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2015-16 ) Piramal Investment Opportunities Fund, Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel(West), Mumbai 400 013 Pan: Aactp-3767-H ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range -20, Room No.418, 4Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Parel, Mumbai 400 012. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Ronak Doshi ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : S/Shri R.K.Sahu & Milind Chavan सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 14/01/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 11/04/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai -20 (In Short ‘The Pcit’) Dated 12/03/2021 For Assessment Year 2015-16, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ( In Short ‘ The Act’ )

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: S/Shri R.K.Sahu and Milind Chavan

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 61

paper book. The PCIT without appreciating the facts and the legal position passed the impugned order. The PCIT has held the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue primarily on two grounds: (i) The Assessing Officer has not made enquiries with regard to the issue for which ... assessee finally submitted that since twin conditions for invoking provisions of section 263 of the Act i.e. the assessment order should be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue are not satisfied in the present case, the PCIT has exceeded his jurisdiction in exercising revisional powers. The ld. Authorized

Bank of Baroda(E-Dena Bank), Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT - 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1685/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं.1685/मुं/2020 ("न. व. 2015-16) Bank Of Baroda (E-Dena Bank) 2Nd Floor, Accounts & Taxation Dept. C-26, G-Block, Baroda Corporate Centre, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400 051 Pan: Aaacd-4249-B ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income -2, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Ananthan & Ms. Lalitha Rameswaram ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Rahul Raman & Milind Chavan सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 14/01/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 11/04/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Mumbai ( In Short ‘The Pcit-2’) Dated 13/03/2020 For Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ( In Short ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan &For Respondent: S/Shri Rahul Raman & Milind Chavan

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 43B

PCIT has rightly invoked revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act. Lack of enquiry by Assessing Officer has rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 4. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the orders of authorities below, as well ... views are possible and the ITO 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 ITO is unsustainable in law.” In the present case twin conditions

Galaxy Infraprojects & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT- 14, Mumbai

ITA 3315/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Promod Kumar () & Ms. Suchitra Kamble () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Galaxy Infraprojects& Developers Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit-14, Unit 69/2948, Ratnadeep Co-Op Housing Room No. 415, 4Th Floor, Society Ltd., Gandhi Nagar, Bandra (E), Vs. Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaccg 7477 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Prateekjha, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Harendra Narayan Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/04/2022

For Appellant: Mr. PrateekJha, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Harendra Narayan Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

dated Galaxy Infraprojects & Developers Pvt. Ltd. 2 13.10.2016 passed by the Ld. AssessingOffice (A) by holding that the same is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of therevenue 2. The Learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 14, Mumbai has further erred inholding that the Ld. AO has not examined