← 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

Shree Roshan Cold Storage, Sambhal vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, accordingly, the order passed u/s 263 of the Act is set aside

ITA 3156/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahmanshree Roshan Cold Storage, Vs. Pr.Cit, Vpo – Rustampur Vill. Niyawali, Bareilly (U.P.) Sambhal – 244 302 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan :Aagfs7012N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V. Rajakumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Citdr Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2025 Date Of Order : 22.09.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman:

For Appellant: Shri V. Rajakumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CITDR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 263

against returned income of Rs.9,58,149/-. 3. Subsequently, ld. PCIT, Bareilly on verification of the assessment records found that the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and assessment framed by the AO was set aside to be framed de novo as per law, keeping

Sneh Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-32(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on both counts on merit as well as jurisdictional issue raised by the assessee in the additional ground of appeal

ITA 3928/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 54F

aspect of book profits which was considered by the Commissioner and the order of the Assessing Officer was held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In this regard, it may be pointed out that the case of assessee was picked up for scrutiny under CASS ... such opinion has been formed by the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner has erred in holding the order of the Assessing Officer to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue in this regard. Accordingly, we reverse the findings of the Commissioner. Accordingly, we hold that the order passed

Kohinoor Tobacco Products Private Limited Jabalpur, Jabalpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jabalpur

In the result, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 48/JAB/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.-2018-19 Kohinoor Tobacco Products Private Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Limited, 903, M.H. House, Gole Bazar, Tax, Jabalpur-1 Jabalpur, M.P. Pan:Aabck7797E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Shravan Kumar Meena, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

passed the assessment order accepting the returned income without looking into this aspect. Therefore, the said order was found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue in the light of Explanation 2(a) of section 263. 3. Aggrieved with the same, the assessee filed this appeal before

Naynaben Arunbhai Jain, Ahura Nagar Society vs. PCIT Surat-1, Aayakar Bhavan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 572/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.571 & 572/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Naynaben Arunbhai Jain Principal Commissioner Of बनाम/ 255-257, Ahura Nagar Society Income-Tax, Surat-1, Income Tax Vs. Surat – 395009 Office, 123, 1Stfloor, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acnpj 5784 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 23/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

erred in passing the order u/s 263 although the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 2.On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Pr.CIT ... Pr.CIT has erred in passing the order u/s.263 although the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 2.On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned

Naynaben Arunbhai Jain, Ahura Nagar Society vs. PCIT Surat-1, Aayakar Bhavan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 571/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.571 & 572/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Naynaben Arunbhai Jain Principal Commissioner Of बनाम/ 255-257, Ahura Nagar Society Income-Tax, Surat-1, Income Tax Vs. Surat – 395009 Office, 123, 1Stfloor, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acnpj 5784 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 23/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

erred in passing the order u/s 263 although the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 2.On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Pr.CIT ... Pr.CIT has erred in passing the order u/s.263 although the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 2.On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned

Megnanapuram Paccs, Tiruchendur vs. PCIT, Madurai

ITA 895/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:895/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Megnanapuram Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Society 4/40, Megnanapuram Tiruchendur Road, Tiruchendur Thoothukudi – 628 210. [Pan: Aabam-9847-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Pcit Vs. Madurai - I (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Pcit, Madurai - 1, For The Assessment Year 2018-19, Vide Order Dated 17.03.2025. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक

Lic Mutual Fund Asset Management Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-1(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4246/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2022-23 Lic Mutual Fund Asset Dcit-1(2)(1), Management Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, Industrial Assurance Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Building, Mumbai-400020. Opp: Churchgate Station, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan : Aaacj1166H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Madhur Agrawal & Shri Ravikant Pathak For Revenue : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-09-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-1, [„Ld.Pcit‟], Dated 07-03- 2025, U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.The Hon'Ble Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-1 (Hereinafter Referred As Hon'Ble Pcit] Erred In Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act") & Passing The Revision Order U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

passing the revision order u/s 263 of the Act. 2 The Appellant submits that assessment order passed by the AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue; hence, the revision order passed u/s 263 of the Act is bad in law and deserves to be quashed ... Hence the expenditure in relation to above has been hidden and could not have been examined by the FAO. The order is hence erroneous and prejudicial to interests of revenue. This office hence considers it appropriate that revision u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 may be considered under

Azb and Partner, Mumbai vs. PCIT-8, Mumbai

ITA 4105/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Shri VinayakFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 195Section 263

assessee duly filed its reply in compliance with the notice. After considering the submissions, the Ld. PCIT held the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and set aside the impugned assessment order for verification. Being aggrieved, the assessee has preferred the present appeal ... render the decision erroneous under explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act, and the order passed by the AO, is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue, and we hold that the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 by the Ld PCIT in the instant case

Township Real Estate Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -6, Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3303/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankartownship Real Estate V/S. Principal Commissioner Of Developers Private Limited, बनाम Income Tax– 6, Room No. C-62, Vibgyor Tower, Bandra 501, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Kurla Complex, Bandra - East, Bhawan, Maharishi Karve Mumbai –400 051, Maharashtra Road, Mumbai–400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabct7356E Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Nishith Khatri, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT-DR)
Section 135Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 80G

section 80G of the Act pursuant to donation made under Corporate Social Responsibility during scrutiny proceedings, therefore the Assessment Order passed is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and consequentially the Revision Order passed under section 263 of the Act is bad in law, void ... Therefore, he opined that in terms of Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act, the assessment order made u/s 143(3) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. In response to the show cause issued in this regard, the assessee claimed that there

M/S Enam Asset Management Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT-3, Mumbai

In the result, grounds of

ITA 2756/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi,ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, (Sr. DR)
Section 135Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80G

referred to as ‘the Act') to hold that the assessment order dated 22-09-2022 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the PCIT has erred ... reference to the issue and argued that deduction of CSR expenses was allowable. Therefore, in terms of above, the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The assessment order was set aside on the issue relating to disallowance of deduction claimed

Email Pharmaceuical Industries Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT-4, Mumbai

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

ITA 2079/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarm/S Emil Pharmaceutical V/S. Principal Commissioner Of Industries Pvt. Ltd. बनाम Income Tax-4 101, Mangalam, Kulupwadi Room No. 629, Aayakar Road, Borivali East, Mumbai Bhawan, Maharishi Karve –400101, Maharashtra Road, Mumbai–400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace0922A Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Anil Thakrar, CA (Virtually appeared)For Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, (Sr. DR)
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

allowed it. He therefore issued a show cause notice for invoking provisions of the Act as the assessment order was found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue as deduction of CSR expenses was not allowable under the Act. In response, the AR of the assessee ... views are possible and the AO has taken one view with which the CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue "unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law". 5.2 Thus, in our considered view

International Green Scapes Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 74(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with the above observations

ITA 2047/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2015-16] International Green Scapes Dcit, Ltd. B-16, Circle-74(1), Room No. 411, South Extn., Part-1, Vs 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, New Delhi-110024. Distt. Centre, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092. Pan- Aaaci0600F Assessee Revenue Assessee By Shri Sandeep Jain, Ca Revenue By Shri B.S. Anand, Sr. Dr [Assessment Year: 2015-16] International Green Scapes Cit(Tds), Ltd., B-16, Delhi-1, Room No. 610, 6Th South Extn., Part-1, Vs Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, New Delhi-110024. Distt. Centre, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092.. Pan- Aaaci0600F Assessee Revenue Assessee By Shri Sandeep Jain, Ca Revenue By Shri Shravan Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 25.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2025

Section 194Section 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 263

Commissioner of Income Tax erred in holding the assessment order passed u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter any of the grounds of appeal.” 3. Brief ... payments of Rs. 5,34,24,000/- by the assessee to the HUDA was not in accordance with law, and was erroneous, and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. He therefore, cancelled the said order and asked the AO to pass fresh order under Section 201(1)/201A

International Green Scapes Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 74(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with the above observations

ITA 2046/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2015-16] International Green Scapes Dcit, Ltd. B-16, Circle-74(1), Room No. 411, South Extn., Part-1, Vs 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, New Delhi-110024. Distt. Centre, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092. Pan- Aaaci0600F Assessee Revenue Assessee By Shri Sandeep Jain, Ca Revenue By Shri B.S. Anand, Sr. Dr [Assessment Year: 2015-16] International Green Scapes Cit(Tds), Ltd., B-16, Delhi-1, Room No. 610, 6Th South Extn., Part-1, Vs Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, New Delhi-110024. Distt. Centre, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092.. Pan- Aaaci0600F Assessee Revenue Assessee By Shri Sandeep Jain, Ca Revenue By Shri Shravan Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 25.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2025

Section 194Section 194CSection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 263

Commissioner of Income Tax erred in holding the assessment order passed u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter any of the grounds of appeal.” 3. Brief ... payments of Rs. 5,34,24,000/- by the assessee to the HUDA was not in accordance with law, and was erroneous, and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. He therefore, cancelled the said order and asked the AO to pass fresh order under Section 201(1)/201A

Gsp Crop Science Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 987/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT- DR
Section 135Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 35Section 37(1)Section 40Section 80G

noted several issues that were either not properly verified or incorrectly allowed by the Assessing Officer, rendering the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. First, it was observed that the assessee had claimed a weighted deduction of Rs. 2,30,40,298/- under section ... trust and did not directly undertake CSR activities, which further weakens the deduction claimed by the assessee. Therefore, this issue was also found erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue and sent back to the A.O. for disallowance of the CSR expenses in any form. Fourth, on the issue of brought

Jignesh Mahesh Gohel, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 41(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2708/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrijignesh Mahesh Gohel Dcit, Circle 41(2)(1), Shop No.4, Surya Prakash Vs. Mumbai Building, Ganesh Gavde Road, Room No. 831, Kautilya Mulund (W), Mumbai 400080 Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aarpg3795P (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररती की ओर से / Assessee By: Shri. Aditya Ramchandran /Revenue By: Shri Vivek Perampurna Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M]: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Pr. C.I.T., Mumbai -41 (Hereinafter Referred To As "Pcit"] Dated 26.03.2025 Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Act"] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Aditya RamchandranFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 47

144B was passed by the Ld. AO after due examination of the issue and, therefore, the same could not be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. 5. Ld. DR on the other hand, relied on the order of Ld. PCIT and pointed out that the order

Radheshyam Paper Mills Private Limited, Lilapar Road, Lilapar vs. PCIT-Rajkot-1, Income Taxdepartment, Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Aaykar Bhavan Ring Road Race Course Rajkot

In the result, appeal OF the assessee is allowed

ITA 243/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Raiyani, Ld.A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Pallavi, Ld.CIT-D.R
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 69Section 69B

assessee submitted its reply before the assessing officer with documentary evidence. Therefore, order passed by the assessing officer, is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 6. However, the Ld. PCIT rejected the contention of the assessee and observed that it is a fact that disclosure ... assessee submitted its reply before the assessing officer with documentary evidences. Therefore, order passed by the assessing officer, is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, hence, order of the Ld. PCIT may be quashed. 9. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. for the Revenue submitted

Likhmi Chand Sharma, Bharatpur vs. The ITO, Ward-4(1)(7), Vadodara

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

ITA 500/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyallikhmi Chand Sharma, Income Tax Officer, Vs. C/O. Jngoyal & Company, Ward 4 (1)(7), C-162, Ranjeet Nagar, Vadodara Bharatpur, Rajasthan-321001 [Pan :Bsrps 8059 R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 16.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.09.2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr DR
Section 10Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

failed to consider and appreciate the facts and documentary evidence submitted by the appellant in support of his claims, resulting in an erroneous and prejudicial order.” 3. In this case, the assessee filed his original return for the year under consideration on 19.08.2018, declaring a total income of Rs.4

Rhv Enterprise Private Limited, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 1441/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tej Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 13ASection 147Section 148Section 29CSection 69CSection 80G

must act as both investigator and adjudicator. Since the AO did not investigate the donations at all, the order was held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, satisfying both conditions under Section 263. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed, and the revision order

Rhv Enterprise Private Limited, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 1440/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tej Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 13ASection 147Section 148Section 29CSection 69CSection 80G

must act as both investigator and adjudicator. Since the AO did not investigate the donations at all, the order was held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, satisfying both conditions under Section 263. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed, and the revision order

Rajni Kumar Wife of Shri Brig. Narender Kumar H.No.394, Sector-21, Gurgaonn, Gurgaon vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 3188/DEL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarrajni Kumar, Vs. Ito, Ward 3 (1), W/O Shri Brig. Narender Kumar, Gurgaon. House No.394, Sector 21, Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Ayypk1781A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Sr Date Of Hearing : 19.08.2025 Date Of Order : 17.09.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 27.09.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 & The Assessment Order Was Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. SR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

PCIT initiated proceedings u/s 263 of the Act and held that the assessment framed by the AO vide order dated 29.12.2019 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue due to the reason that the AO has not conducted any enquiry or investigation before allowing the benefits of capital