← 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

Ucal Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai-3, Chennai

ITA 1018/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

above, the order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act on 20.09.2022 by the Faceless Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue in terms of clause (a) of Explanation 2 under sub-section(1) of section 263. Hence, this is fit case ... prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Also, an incorrect assumption of facts by the AO would make the order of assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 9. Therefore, the failure of the Assessing Officer to cause necessary verification makes the assessment order dated

Deutsche Investments India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle- 4(2)(1), Mumbai, Mumabi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3764/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Deutsche Investments India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle 4(2)(1) Block B1, Nirlon Knowledge Park, Off 6Th Floor, Room No. Western Express Highway, Goregaon Vs. 642, Aayakar East, Mumbai-400 063. Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aaccd1765E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Umashankar PrasadFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Sheth
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

under section 263 of the Act on the grounds that the original assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and directing the Assessing Officer ('AO') to enquire the claim of section 80G deduction made out of Corporate

Shri Mahaveer Charitable Trust, Allahabad vs. ITO(Exemption), Allahabad

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

ITA 181/ALLD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad14 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 Shri Mahaveer Charitable Trust, Vs Income Tax Officer 46, Rajendra Nagar, Baluaghat, (Exemption), Allahabad Allahabad-211003, U.P. Pan: Aahts9123K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Dr. Pawan Jaiswal & Sh. Ajit Kumar, Advocates Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2025 Date Of 14.10.2025 Pronouncement: O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit, Nfac Dated 28.09.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee That Was Filed Against The Orders Of The Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Allahabad Dated 30.03.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Because The Impugned Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 28.09.2024 Affirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,97,69,650/- On Account Of Donation Received & Rejection Of The Submissions Of The Appellant That Appeal Proceedings Pending Against The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Dated 30.03.2016 Are Infructuous Is Absolutely Illegal & Against The Principles Of Law. 2. Because The Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Cit V. Alagendran Finance Ltd. [27.07.2007] Had Observed That When An Order Of Assessment Is Reopened, The Previous Assessment Will Be Held To Be Set Aside & The Whole Proceedings Would Start Afresh & In The Case In Hands The Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2016 Has Been Set-Aside By The Then Incumbent Ld. Cit(E); That Is To Say That No Assessment Existed On The Date When Order Dated 28.02.2018 Under Section 263 Of The Act Was Passed By The Then Incumbent Cit(E). 3. Because Section 263 Of The Act Grants Power To The Jurisdictional Commissioner To Direct For Revision Of Orders & Reads As Under (Relevant Statute Quoted):

For Appellant: Dr. Pawan Jaiswal & Sh. Ajit Kumar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

could examine the issue, the ld. CIT (Exemption) revised the assessment order under section 263 of the Act, holding it to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and he directed the ld. AO to make fresh assessment, by setting aside the assessment order dated 30.03.2016. This order ... orders passed by the ld. CIT (Exemption) under section 263 on 28.02.2018 and pointed out that the order had been held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue because the assessment had not been completed in accordance with the provisions of section 13(7) of the Income

Santosh Rathore, Indore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore - 1, Indore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 451/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

PCIT has erred in invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the Act without appreciating that the reassessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.” The background facts leading to present appeal are as under: The assessee filed original return ... stand in eyes of law, it Page 25 of 49 Santosh Rathore ITA No. 451/Ind/2024 - AY 2015-16 cannot be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue by the Commissioner. Again in the case of Westlife Development Ltd. v. PCIT vide order dated 24.06.2016 (ITAT Mumbai

Sanjeev Kumar Rana, Ropar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 706/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.706/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Sanjeev Kumar Rana Pr. Cit बनाम/ Vs. 93-Kiln Area, Nangal Ropar Sector -17E (Punjab) 140124. Chandigarh "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aespk-7126-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca)(Virtual) –Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit)(Virtual) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assails Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chandigarh-1 (Pr. Cit) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Vide Impugned Order Dated 10-05-2023 Proposing Revision Of An Assessment As Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 12-10-2017. 2. Briefly Stated, The Assessee Was Assessed U/S 143(3) On 12-10-2017 Wherein The Income Of The Assessee Was Determined At Rs.8.79 Lacs After

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA)(Virtual) –Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT)(Virtual) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 68

substantiate the same. However, there is no finding by Ld. Pr. CIT on assessee’s submissions and no case of assessment order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue has been made out against the assessee. Simply because some further verification was required or simply because ... 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. The said principal has been

Wns Global Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3762/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhriwns Global Services Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Private Limited Income-Tax-6 Plant 11, Gate No. 4, Godrej Room No. 501, 5Th Floor & Boyce Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Piroshanagar, Lbs Marg, Karve Road, Mumbai Vikhroli West, Mumbai 400020. 400079 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacw2598L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Ajit Shah & Ms. Hetal SanganiFor Respondent: Shri. Arun Kanti Datta – CIT DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

Relief Fund. 3.3 However, ld. PCIT passed an order u/s. 263 on 24.02.2025 holding that the assessment order passed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue and set aside the same on the issue of claim of deduction u/s. 80G of the Act with directions to make

Rivaara Labs Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3640/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi,ARFor Respondent: Shri Uma Shankar Prasad, (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35DSection 37Section 37(1)

acted beyond jurisdiction by initiating proceedings under section 263 of the Act without appreciating the fact that the twin conditions of order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue prescribed under the provisions of section 263 of the Act were not satisfied. 3. The Ld. PCIT erred ... section 263 by treating the assessment order under section 143(3) by the Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Center ( the AO) as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, without appreciating that the AO had duly enquired into the issues, conducted proper verification, and passed the order after

Rakesh Agarwal, Aligarh vs. PCIT Agra-1, Agra

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

ITA 205/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 147oSection 148Section 263Section 50Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

view of the above submissions, it was submitted that the assessment order passed in this case cannot be held to erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and requested the ld. PCIT to drop the said proceedings. 5. The Ld. PCIT did not agree with the above submission ... appellant without appreciating that assessment order u/s 143(3)read with Section 144 B of the Income Tax Act is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue as during assessment proceedings, Ld. AO NFAC had specifically raised queries pertaining to Circular 8/2018 issued by CBDT and difference

Mamta Agarwal, Aligarh vs. PCIT Agra-1, Agra

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

ITA 204/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 147oSection 148Section 263Section 50Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

view of the above submissions, it was submitted that the assessment order passed in this case cannot be held to erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and requested the ld. PCIT to drop the said proceedings. 5. The Ld. PCIT did not agree with the above submission ... appellant without appreciating that assessment order u/s 143(3)read with Section 144 B of the Income Tax Act is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue as during assessment proceedings, Ld. AO NFAC had specifically raised queries pertaining to Circular 8/2018 issued by CBDT and difference

Ceigall India Limited, Ludhiana vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 540/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Tarundeep Kaur, CIT, DR(Virtual)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

PCIT”) dated 30.03.2025 for A.Y. 2020-21, whereby the Ld. PCIT held that the assessment framed u/s 143(3) on 20.09.2022 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business ... were called for. On issues like professional fees, capital gains, and fixed asset additions, AO had not gone deep. Therefore, the order was erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue. 5. We have carefully considered rival submissions and examined the record. The following position emerges: a. The case was selected for limited

Ms. Nabeel Constructions Pvt. Ltd, Mira Road, Thane vs. Pr. CIT Thane -1, Thane

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

ITA 4340/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2021-22
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 263Section 271ASection 37(1)Section 69C

section 263 is supervisory and not appellate. For valid exercise of that power, two conditions must co-exist: the order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. An order cannot be termed erroneous if the Assessing Officer has taken one of the possible views after

Ram Baburao Salve, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 17(3)(!), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5370/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agarwal & Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

treating the addition of Rs. 1,59,93,300 being cash deposit under the head 'Income from other sources' considering the same as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of income and disallowed the set off of brought forward losses without providing any reason in the order. 5. Thereafter ... this case. The order so passed deserves to be cancelled in limine. 2. That the order passed by the Assessing Officer was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue within the meaning of section 263 and the Id. CIT City 17 erred in law as well

Smt. Anita Banodha Alias Anita Kathgar, Anita Auto, Pondi Chirmiri Korea, Korea vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 230/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.230/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Smt. Anita Banodha Alias Anita Kathgar Anita Auto, Pondi, West Chirmiri, Korea (C.G)-497 449 Pan: Afgpj1876C ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1(C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Raghunath, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

have already held that failure to conduct enquiries on part of AO constitutes assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Therefore, the decisions rendered without taking into considerations the above decisions of the Supreme Court appear to be incorrect ... Further, there was no enquiry conducted by the A.O regarding excess shortage of diesel which resulted in making assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Erroneous because, there was no enquiry conducted by the A.O with regard to excess shortage of diesel by the assessee

Haryana Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Panchkula vs. DCIT, Exemption, Chandigarh

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 337/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 237/Chd/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Haryana Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Bays No. 29- 30, Sector 4, Panchkula, Haryana The Dcit, बनाम Circle 2, Vs. Exemption, Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaath6995H अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.337 To 339/Chd/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Haryana Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Bays No. 29- 30, Sector 4, Panchkula, Haryana The Dcit बनाम Exemption, Vs. Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaath6995H अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 63/Chd/2021 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Haryana Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Bays No. 29-30, Sector 4, Panchkula, Haryana The Dcit बनाम Exemptions, Vs. Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaath6995H अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate, Sh. Ashok Goyal, Ca & Sh. Sifatfreet Singh, Ca राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Manav Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 10.12.2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: The Captioned Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals) For Different Assessment Years, As Per The Details Given Below: S.No.

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 263

such view, revision under section 263 is not permissible. 3.1.4 Section 263 can be invoked only if the impugned assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The twin conditions are conjunctive, satisfaction of only one does not permit revision. The record demonstrates that ... establish that full enquiries were made and the order was passed after due application of mind. Therefore, the allegation that the order was “erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue” is factually incorrect and legally untenable. 3.2 It is not a case of “no enquiry” 3.2.1 The Learned

Mohammedsaqib Aiyub Puthawala, Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 623/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263

made in respect of bogus accommodation entry of Rs.12,18,543/- in the form of exempt LTCG, the order of the A.O. was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore, the Ld. PCIT set-aside the assessment order passed by the A.O. with a direction to pass ... Mohammedsaqib Aiyub Puthawala. vs. PCIT 'KTL') was genuine and the appellant was entitled to exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 2.1 The Id. Pr. CIT has grievously erred

M/S. Unique Pharmaceutical Laboratories Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT-8, Mumbai

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

ITA 3294/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampura (CIT-DR)
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

verified both the transactions during the assessment proceeding. Accordingly, the Ld.PCIT considered the impugned assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly, he set aside the assessment order for further verification related to both the issues as stated above. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed ... PCIT was of the view that both issues were not examined by the Assessing Officer and, therefore, the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. We note that the issue regarding the allowability of CSR expenditure claimed as deduction under section 80G is now well

Kanigere Ramegowda Ningaraju, Hassan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps, Hassan

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

ITA 1046/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Years : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri V Shivarama Iyer, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263Section 269SSection 45

Silver Oak trees could attract . Page 3 of 6 capital gains under section 45 of the Act. Holding that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, the PCIT relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deniel Merchants ... explanation of the assessee. According to him, the assessment was framed after conducting necessary enquiries, and therefore it cannot be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. . Page 4 of 6 6. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative supported the order passed

Anilkumar Anthony Krishna Murthy, Mysore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 915/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar SV, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 263

proposal, the Commissioner issued a notice under section 263 of the Act. He held that the assessment order Page 2 of 5 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. He set aside the assessment with a direction to the Assessing Officer to make a fresh order ... requires the Commissioner to apply his own mind to the record and form his own satisfaction that the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. He cannot rely only on a proposal from the Assessing Officer. 4. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative supported the order

National Payments Corporation of India, Mumbai vs. CIT(Exemptions), Mumbai

ITA 3652/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Respondent: Shri Niraj Sheth a/w
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 263

that there is a failure on the part of the AO to conduct proper inquiries and verifications which rendered the impugned assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The impugned assessment order was thus, set aside for de novo assessment with a direction to make necessary

Devi Sea Foods Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 316/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 14ASection 263

expenditure. Thus, he considered the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 25.09.2022 prima-facie to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Thereafter, he issued show-cause notice on 25.09.2024 requiring the assessee to show-cause why the assessment order ... Income Tax Act, 1961 and holding that the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B dated 25.09.2022 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2. The impugned order passed by learned PCIT-1 under Section 263 is bad in law and is liable