← 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

Debpara Tea Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 983/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 8

assessment order, the AO determined loss of Rs. 55,85,277/- and therefore, the assessment order framed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly, show cause notice issued to the assessee u/s 263 of the Act. The assessee replied by specifically submitting that ... without understanding the factual legal aspect of the matter is wrong. In our considered view the order passed by the AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

Cisco Commerce India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, PCIT, Bengaluru-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1235/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. N. Hemalatha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 194JSection 263Section 40

dated 29.3.2025. The PCIT found that the Page 2 of 24 assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with 144B was erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue because the issue of 'refund liabilities' was not properly examined by the Assessing Officer. 2. The assessee is dissatisfied with the revisionary order ... made which is subject matter of appeal. 5. Perfunctory and routine conclusions in Impugned order that Assessment order dated December 26,2022 is erroneous and/or prejudicial to revenue is without valid basis, ignores material filed/ explanations offered. Revisionary proceedings are Page 3 of 24 unlawful and illegal and deserve

Dharmbati, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Inspector Faridabad, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5672/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2018-19 Dharmbati, Vs. Income Tax Inspector, H. No. 523, Chandawali, Faridabad Ballabhgarh, Faridabad Pan: Azipb6400G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 05.03.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short, The “Cit(A)/Nfac”], Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1077406804(1), Dated 23.06.2025 Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Case Called Twice. None Appears At The Assessee’S Behest. He Is Accordingly Proceeded Ex-Parte. 2. It Emerges During The Course Of Hearing That The Sole Substantive Issue Between The Parties Is That Of Correctness Of The Learned Lower Authorities’ Action Assessing The Assessee’S Interest Component Of Land Acquisition Compensation U/S 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, While Invoking Section 57(Iv) R.W.S. 56(1)(A) R.W.S. 145A(B) Of The Act. 3. Learned Sr. Dr Representing The Department Vehemently Argued That The Instant Issue Is No More Res Integra In Light Of Mahender Pal Narang Vs. Cbdt (2020) 423 Itr 13 (P&H) As Well As Pcit Vs. Inderjit Singh Sodhi Huf (2024) 161 Taxmann.Com 301 (Del.) Wherein The Department Has Succeeded Before Their Lordships That The Impugned Interest Component Ought To Be Assessed As Income From “Other” Sources Only. 4. We Have Given Our Thoughtful Consideration To The Assessee’S Pleadings & Revenue’S Foregoing Vehement Contention. It Emerges That This Tribunal’S Recent Decision In Pawan Kumar Vs. Pcit (2024) 159 Taxmann.Com 61 (Del.-Trib.) Has Distinguished The Said Case Law As Under:

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 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

Gopal Reddy Gattu, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1011/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2021-22
Section 143(3)Section 263

assuming Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The original assessment order passed under Section 143(3) was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Therefore, the invocation of Section 263 by the PCIT is bad in law and deserves to be quashed ... provide relevant documentary evidence, which makes the order unsustainable in law. 3. The PCIT's findings that the original assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue are arbitrary, perverse, and based on mere conjectures and surmises. The original assessment was completed u/s 143(3) read

Madan Mohan Rao Puvvada, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1152/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1152/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Madan Mohan Rao The Income Tax Puvvada, Hyderabad. Officer, Ward-5(1), Vs. Pin – 500 063. Hyderabad. Pan Agjpp4754H Telangana. Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04.03.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263

grossly erred in passing the revisionary order without satisfying the twin conditions that the order should be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 6 ITA.No.1152/Hyd./2024 5. The Ld. Pr. CIT erred in passing the revisionary order by forming different opinion from that ... immovable property at Rs.2,70,98,000/- from Shri Damodar Reddy Vangala on 25.05.2016 and said the assessment order passed u/s 147rws144B is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2.3. However, your good selves erred in appreciating the fact that the property purchased are in joint name

Mahaveer Singh, Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 840/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234FSection 263(1)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44A

270A(2)(b) is directly attracted. Whereas the assessing officer has failed to initiate the penalty proceedings in the reassessment proceedings which is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Therefore Ld. PCIT issued a show cause notice dated 08-03-2024 to the assessee. 3.1 The assessee replied ... that the order passed by the A.O. was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. However an appeal is pending against the reassessment order, therefore the Revision proceedings is barred u/s. 263(1) of the Act. Further the reply of the assessee reads as follows: “It is respectfully

Comer Industries India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle 2(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1228/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Balasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 234CSection 263Section 36(1)(va)

passed u/s. Page 2 of 10 143(3) r.w.s. 144C r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] dated 20.7.2022 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue to the extent of the fact that there are penalties paid by the assessee which were disallowed ... therefore the ld. AO allowing the same without making any enquiry makes the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Page 4 of 10 7. With respect to the interest on TDS of Rs.697 and Rs.3,400 on account of delayed filing of Excise return

Starshine Land Developers Private Limited, Andheri East, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-5, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai

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

ITA 2148/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 148Section 23(5)Section 263

unsold flats is a legally examinable issue and failure of the Assessing Officer to examine the same renders the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The legal position governing exercise ... held that the Commissioner can revise an order only when the twin conditions, the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue are satisfied. An order becomes erroneous when it is passed on incorrect assumption of facts or incorrect application of law or without application of mind

International Seaport (Haldia) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, -2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 211/KOL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm International Seaport (Haldia) Pvt. Ltd. Pcit, 2 C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, Advocates, 2 Garstin Place, 2 Nd Chowringhee Square, Vs. Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Street, Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci9468D Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri S. Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, DR
Section 12ASection 138Section 143(3)Section 263

consider the same while framing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and therefore, the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The ld. PCIT accordingly issued show cause notice u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, International Seaport (Haldia ... Assessing Officer was required to make more enquiries, would not be a valid ground for treating the order of the Assessing Officer, as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The power under Section 263 of the Act cannot be invokved in such circumstances by the PCIT

Sitaram Sitani, Brajrajnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Jharsuguda

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 617/CTK/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.617/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-2011) Sitaram Sitani, Lamtibahal, Vs Income Tax Officer, Lamtibahal, Brajarajnagar, Ward-2, Jharsuguda Jharsuguda Pan No. : Adqps 3736 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Anil Kr Agarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjib Banerjee, Ld Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/02/2026

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kr Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjib Banerjee, ld Sr DR
Section 263Section 40A(3)

case of Attarsingh Gurumukh Singh (supra) are not applicable to the facts of the assessee and held the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It was the submission that consequent to the order under section 263 of the Act, the Assessing Officer passed

Superhouse Limited, Kanpur vs. CIT, International Taxation-3, Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 356/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos. 356 & 357/Lkw/2024 A.Ys. 2014-15 & A.Ys. 2015-16 Superhouse Limited, 150 Feet Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Road, Jajmau, Kanpur-208010 International Taxation-3, Delhi Pan: Aabcs9328K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. G.C. Srivastava, Adv & Sh. Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Cit, (International Taxation)-3, Delhi Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act For The A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16, Both Dated 29.03.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit Has Set Aside The Earlier Orders Of The Assessing Officer For Making Of Fresh Orders In Accordance With The Directions Issued By Her. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Act & In Doing So, Has Sought To Substitute His Opinion With The Order Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) Passed After Undertaking Extensive & Detailed Consideration Of The Issue By The Ito (Tds). 2. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Assuming The Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Act Without Appreciating That The Order Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) Passed By The Ito (Tds) Was Unerring & In Consonance With The Settled Principles Of Law. 3. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order While Premised On An Illegal Assumption Of Jurisdiction, Further Suffers From Non-Application Of Mind Since The Submissions Of The Assessee Have Not Been Considered [As Illustrated Infra]. A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. G.C. Srivastava, Adv & Sh. KalravFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 201(1)Section 263Section 90

under section 263 of the Act, asking the assessee to show cause as to why the orders should not be presumed to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, on account of the fact that the assessee had not deducted the tax at source on the commission paid ... section 263 of the Act. It was further submitted that orders where two views were permissible in law, could not be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue, unless the view taken was completely unsustainable in law. Furthermore, an audit objection could not be the sole basis for initiating

Fattesing Punaji Dhabre, Nagpur vs. Principal Commissioner Income Tax – 2, Nagpur

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 368/NAG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Fattesing Punaji Dhabre Pcit – 2, Nagpur Plot No. 132, Chandan Nagar, Post Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur, Maharashtra – 440001. Maharashtra – 440009. [Pan: Bacpd6505Q] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Madhav Vichare, Ca Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 263Section 54B

computation of long term capital gain remained unverified. The ld. PCIT was of the view that order passed by ld. Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The details on record clearly indicates that issues and discrepancies were neither verified nor enquired by ld. Assessing Officer

Dinesh Verma, Manali, Himachal Pradesh vs. ITO, ITO Ward Kullu

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 897/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinamar Gupta, C.A (Virtually)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 263Section 270A

Assessing Officer failed to initiate the penalty proceedings which were warranted as per the Act, the two conditions of the impugned order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue therefore exist. 7.3 It is well established that the Assessing Officer has to initiate proceedings for imposition of penalty ... issue which ought to have been done. 3 7.4 In view of the above, the Assessment Order in the instant case is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and therefore the Pr.CIT has jurisdiction to invoke provisions of Section 263 and revise the Order. 9. In view

Innovate Derivatives Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 31/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 250

order does not discuss all aspects in detail with regards to claim of the assessee, it cannot be held that the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue The above proposition has been upheld in the case of CIT v. Reliance Communication 69 taxmann.com 109 (Bombay

Jignasa Atulkumar Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1140/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

have made addition u/s. 69A of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Thus the reassessment order passed by the Ld. A.O. is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of I.T.A No. 1140/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2018-19 Page No 3 Jignasa Atulkumar Shah vs. PR.CIT Revenue. Therefore assessee was given opportunity ... initiated U/S 263 of the Act. 3.2. The above reply was considered by Ld. PCIT and held that the reassessment order passed is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue thereby set-aside the reassessment order with a direction to the A.O. to pass fresh assessment order in accordance

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Bau Developers Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 6014/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil BhattFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263

CITIA) erred in not confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making the addition, thereby rendering the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.” 3. We have heard both the sides and have perused the material on record. 4. The relevant facts in brief

Shailesh Asalraj Jain, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai 20, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2559/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Devendra JainFor Respondent: 03/12/2025
Section 147Section 148ASection 263

various dates is erroneous and per the SOPs issued on various dates is erroneous and per the SOPs issued on various dates is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Appellant submits that he had The Appellant submits that ... mentioned in your Notice) cannot be proceedings by the AO (as mentioned in your Notice) cannot be termed as erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue termed as erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue termed as erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue

Kamalkumar Ramkumar Agrawal, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1975/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 69

passing the assessment order. Therefore, looking into the instant facts, we are of the considered view that the assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.” “8. Accordingly, in view of the facts placed before us and the judicial precedents on the subject, the appeal

Truhome Finance Limited (Earlier Known As Shriram Housing Finance Limited), Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer Corporate Ward 3(1) Chennai, Chennai

ITA 781/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Mr. S.P. ChidambaramFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Pr. CIT erred in holding ... that the assessment order dated 24 May 2021 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act is as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on account of lack of enquiry by the Assessing Officer, without appreciating that the Assessing Officer had not only made inquiries

Measage.Osaka Alloys and Steel (P) Ltd, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-II, Jalandhar

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 347/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Shri Udayan Dasgupta, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.347/Asr/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S Osaka Alloys & Steel (P) Ltd. Dcit Circle - Ii बनाम/ 428, Mota Singh Nagar, Jalandhar Jalandhar Punjab - 144001 C/O Bhagat & Co. (Ca) Vs. 16 Brij Nagar, Jalandhar, Punjab - 144001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-7097-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (" थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Adjournment Request " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Farhat Khan (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03-02-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Adjournment requestFor Respondent: Sh. Farhat Khan (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 264Section 80I

assessee opposed the revision on various grounds, Ld. Pr. CIT invoked Explanation-2 to Sec. 263(1) to hold that the order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The deduction u/s 80IB was not permissible deduction u/s 115JB. The assessee reduced book profit which was incorrect ... framed the assessment without examining this issue. The failure to make requisite enquiries on this issue would make the order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, assessment order was set aside to that extent and Ld. AO was directed to pass assessment order after granting due opportunity of hearing