← 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

Laxman Kanaiyalal Dharmani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(2)(6), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5675/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Gunjan Kakkad, AR
Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

facts and circumstances of the case and therefore we hold that the assessment order, subjected to revision u/s 263, is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed

Be Healthy Pharmacy, Mumbai vs. DCIT 41(3)(1), Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai

ITA 3666/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Be Healthy Pharmacy Pcit-41 Shop No. 04, Gala Residency Room No. 541 Chsl, Gala Compound, Haji Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc Bapu Road, Malad East C-41 To 43 Mumbai-400 097. Bandra-E, Mumbai-51. Pan : Aatfb6476A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Satyaparkash R. SinghFor Respondent: Shri Ronak Doshi
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 194CSection 194HSection 263

still short by Rs.27,06,270/- from the debited amount of Rs.20,13,87,271/-. Thus the order of the AO is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in the sense that AO's order was passed without verification in this regard. Therefore the assessee submission ... provisions of Section 263 of the Act and setting aside the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act as being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 1.2 For various proposition in law and on facts, section 263 is not applicable and, hence, the Appellant

Mawasi, Haryana vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5020/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, CIT-DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

powers vested in him under section 263 of the Act, the Ld. PCIT held the impugned order of the Ld. AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. According to Ld. PCIT, the Ld. AO should have taken into consideration, the binding decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High ... appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue because (i) the Ld. AO has passed the order after making proper enquiries during assessment proceedings; (ii) the Ld. PCIT

T R Chemicals Limited, Odisha vs. PCIT Sambalpur, Odisha

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 219/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.219/Ctk/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) T R Chemicals Limited, Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur Main Road, Subash Chowk, Rajgangpur, Odisha-770017 Pan No. :Aabct 1919 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bajoria & Shri Yogesh Banka, Ars राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, Dated 15.01.2025 For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Return Filed By The Assessee Came To Be Processed & The Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.147 Of The Act Wherein The Purchases From M/S Mideast Integrated Steel Ltd. Were Disallowed By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 37(1) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Ld. Pr.Cit Invoked His Power U/S.263 Of The Act On The Ground That The Disallowances Made By The Ao U/S.37(1) Of The Act Instead Of Section 69C Of The Act, Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. It Was Submitted That The Issue Is Now Squarely Covered By The Decision Of The Coordinate Bench Of The Tribunal In The Case Of Bajrang Steel & Alloys (P) Ltd., Passed In Ita No.553/Ctk/2024, Order Dated

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bajoria & Shri Yogesh Banka, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 263Section 37(1)Section 69C

ground that the disallowances made by the AO u/s.37(1) of the Act instead of Section 69C of the Act, is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. It was submitted that the issue is now squarely covered by the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal

Jile Singh, Haryana vs. Farmer, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5018/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

powers vested in him under section 263 of the Act, the Ld. PCIT held the impugned order of the Ld. AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. According to Ld. PCIT, the Ld. AO should have taken into consideration, the binding decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High ... appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue because (i) the Ld. AO has passed the order after making proper enquiries during assessment proceedings; (ii) the Ld. PCIT

Kantaben Vajubhai Paghadal, Rajkot, Gujarat vs. ITO WD 1(2)(1), Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 552/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.552/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Kantaben Vajubhai Paghadal Vs. It-Office, New Aayakar At- Charan Samadhiyala, Bhawan, Jetpur – 360370(Gujarat) Rajkot - 360370 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Cxmpp2962D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 145BSection 250Section 56

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." Our view is further fortified ... held as follows: "Section 263 of the Act confers power to examine an assessment order so as to ascertain whether it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue but does not confer jurisdiction upon the CIT to substitute his opinion for the opinion of the Assessing Officer

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Lucknow vs. M/S. U.P. State Construction & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, Lucknow

ITA 617/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 251Section 263

survive without appreciating the fact that the Pr. CIT cancelled the assessment only with respect to that part of the order which was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2. The Ld. CIT(A)-2, Lucknow has erred in law and on facts in holding ... Income Tax Act, 1961 in as much as the original assessment order dated 29.03.2014 passed by the Ld. AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to interest of Revenue. 3. That the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 Lucknow Pg.7.erred in not taking into account the fact that

U.P Samaj Kalyan Nirman Nigam Limited (Now Known As U.P State Construction and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.), Lucknow vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Lucknow

ITA 67/LKW/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 251Section 263

survive without appreciating the fact that the Pr. CIT cancelled the assessment only with respect to that part of the order which was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2. The Ld. CIT(A)-2, Lucknow has erred in law and on facts in holding ... Income Tax Act, 1961 in as much as the original assessment order dated 29.03.2014 passed by the Ld. AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to interest of Revenue. 3. That the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 Lucknow Pg.7.erred in not taking into account the fact that

Aahana Sales Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. PCIT(Central), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 878/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Aahana Sales Private Limited Pr.Cit(Central) 3, Bhavya Enclave Vs. Ahmedabad. Vidhya Vihar Society Usmanpura Ahmedabad. Pan : Aajca 1231 B (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Vivek Chavda, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.P. Rastogi, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11/11/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Chavda, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)

Relying upon Explanation 2(a) to section 263(1) and a series of judicial authorities the PCIT concluded that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 2.6 Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid revisionary order, the assessee has come in appeal before ... PCIT has grievously erred in law and on facts in initiating the proceedings u/s 263 when both conditions for revision - the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue - are not fulfilled. 1.4 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well

Ubs Business Solutions (India) Private Limited (Successor to Credit Suisse Services (India) Pvt Ltd), Pune vs. PCIT, Pune - 1, Pune, Maharashtra

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1407/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1407/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ubs Business Solutions (India) V The Principal Pvt. Ltd. (Successor To Credit S. Commissioner Of Suisse Services (India) Pvt Income Tax, Ltd.), Pune-1. Cluster A, Eon Free Zone, Plot No.1, S.No.77, Ground To 5Th Floors In Wing 1, 3Rd To 5Th Floor In Wing 2, Kharadi Midc Knowledge Park, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aabcu8718M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Agiwal - Ar Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-1 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21, Dated 31.03.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3) R.W.S 144B

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 80G

also conducted complete scrutiny vis-a-vis these points. (b)In view of the above, the impugned assessment order cannot be held as erroneous and prejudicial for alleging lack of enquiry by the Ld. AO in respect of nature of repairs and maintenance expenses, whether being capital or revenue ... assessment order cannot be held as erroneous and prejudicial just because initial computation of income for self-assessment tax was not called by Ld. AO (a) Erred in holding that the assessment order is erroneous because the Ld. 2 AO did not call for documents supporting tax computation made during

Bhargab Engineering Works, Howrah vs. PCIT, Central Kolkata 2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1161/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

observed certain discrepancies from the from the assessment record and the order under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) dated 30.03.2023 was considered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue within the meaning of section 263 of the Act. An opportunity of being heard vide notice dated ... section 263 what has to be seen is that a satisfaction that an order passed by the Authority under the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue is the basic pre- condition for exercise of jurisdiction under section 263. Both are twin conditions that have

Course5 Intelligence Limited, Bangalore vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-2, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1288/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2020-21 Course5 Intelligent Ltd., Vs. Pcit - 2, Unit 104, Ladybird Building C4, 1St Floor, Bangalore. Brigade Tech Gardens Sez, Kundalahallis.O. Bangalore North, Bangalore– 560 037, Karnataka. Pan : Aabcc 6525 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Balusamy N, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 12.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2025

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

under section 263 of the Act called for the records and found that the Assessment Order passed by the AO dated 28.09.2022 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued to the assessee and further assessee filed detailed written submissions justifying ... issue regarding addition made are eligible for exemption under section 10AA of the Act. Therefore, the Order passed by the AO is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. This issue was not raised before the ld. Page 4 of 4 Pr. CIT and it is not emanating

Agarwal Holdings Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3389/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalagarwal Holdings Private Ltd. 211, 2Nd Floor Atlanta Arcade, Marol Church Road Marol, Andheri (East) Mumbai - 400059 ............... Appellant Pan: Aauca5094K V/S Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-1 ……………… Respondent Room No.330, 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai Assessee By : Shri Ashok Bansal Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Ashok BansalFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 111ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

learned Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in passing an order u/s. 263 setting aside order passed u/s 143(3) as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. 2 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in passing an order u/s 263 setting aside order passed ... erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue merely because the learned Assessing Officer had not made more enquiries with respect to Short Term Capital Gain earned by the appellant amounting to Rs. 8.16 Crore. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in passing an order

Raj Singh, Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6710/DEL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2Section 263Section 28Section 3

powers vested in him under section 263 of the Act, the Ld. PCIT held the impugned order of the Ld. AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. According to Ld. PCIT, the Ld. AO should have taken into consideration, the binding decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High ... appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds relate thereto. 4 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue because (i) the Ld. AO has passed the order after making proper enquiries during assessment proceedings; (ii) the Ld. PCIT

Rajpal, Jhajjar vs. Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Unit

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6697/DEL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 3Section 56(2)(viii)

powers vested in him under section 263 of the Act, the Ld. PCIT held the impugned order of the Ld. AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. According to Ld. PCIT, the Ld. AO should have taken into consideration, the binding decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High ... appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue because (i) the Ld. AO has passed the order after making proper enquiries during assessment proceedings; (ii) the Ld. PCIT

Sandeep Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO - Ward 1, Panipat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4348/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Sandeep Kumar, Vs Ito C/O-B-50, Lgf, South Ward-1 Extension Part-Ii, Panipat New Delhi -110049 Pan-Aueps5626A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shantanu Jain, Adv. Ms. Jahnavi Khanna, Adv. Shri Gurjeet Singh, Ca Respondent By Shri Khitesh Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 26.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2025 Order

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 69C

cause notice dt. 07.08.2024, initiated proceedings u/s 263 and asked the assessee as to why the reassessment order should not be held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as the AO has failed to invoke the provisions of section 69C r.w.s. 115BBE ... very casual manner without due diligence and without applying correct provisions of Act and, therefore, the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The ld. PCIT thereafter in terms of the powers conferred as per Explanation 2 of section 263 has set aside the reassessment order

Vihan Vibhag Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd., Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(2)(5), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 707/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.707/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Vihan Vibhag Credit Co-Operative Vs. Ito, Society Ltd., Ward – 2(2)(5), At & Po: Vihan, Tal – Kamrej, Surat Tapi – 394320, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabav5113F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Akshay M. Modi, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/11/2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 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.707/SRT/2025/AY.2017-18 Vihan Vibhag Credit Co-op. Soc. Ltd. 11. We find that

Safal Constructions (India) Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT(Central), Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1138/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Ms.Nupur Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 153CSection 153DSection 263

PCIT passed the revisionary order dated 31.03.2025, holding that the assessment order dated 30.09.2022 and the approval under section 153D dated 29.09.2022 were “erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue” and directing the Assessing Officer and Additional CIT to examine the issues in detail and frame a fresh ... order of approval u/s.153D of the Act dated 29.09.2022 issued by the Addl. CIT, Central Range-1, Ahmedabad are erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Accordingly, the same are set aside to the file of the Assessing officer and Addl. CIT for examining the above issue in detail

Safal Constructions (India) Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT(Central), Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1137/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Ms.Nupur Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 153CSection 153DSection 263

PCIT passed the revisionary order dated 31.03.2025, holding that the assessment order dated 30.09.2022 and the approval under section 153D dated 29.09.2022 were “erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue” and directing the Assessing Officer and Additional CIT to examine the issues in detail and frame a fresh ... order of approval u/s.153D of the Act dated 29.09.2022 issued by the Addl. CIT, Central Range-1, Ahmedabad are erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Accordingly, the same are set aside to the file of the Assessing officer and Addl. CIT for examining the above issue in detail

Nutan Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1023/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 10(15)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 263Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(viia)

following grounds of appeal:- "1.1 That the ld. Prin. CIT has erred in holding that the order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 1.2 That the ld. Prin. CIT has erred in holding that the deduction U/s. 36(1)(viia) is applicable ... applicable at all. 1.4 The appellant respectfully submits that the order passed by ld. Assessing Officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue as both the deductions have been rightly claimed as per the provisions of law and therefore the order passed U/s.263 of the Act should