← 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

Gujarat State Cooperative Cotton Federation Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad -1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 538/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

eligible for claiming deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The Pr. CIT therefore found that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Accordingly, notice u/s. 263 of the Act dated 24-01-2024 was issued to assessee. The assessee submitted reply

M/S. Thdc India Limited, Rishikesh vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 31/DDN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2017-18] M/S. Thdc India Ltd. Vs Pcit Ganga Bhawan, Aaykar Bhawan, Pragatipuram, Bye Pass 13 A, Subhash Road, Road, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand-249201 Pan-Aaact7905Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Jeetan Nagpal, Ca Shri Sanjay Arora, Ca & Ms. Pallavi, Ca Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.03.2022 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Dehradun [“Ld. Pcit”] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Joint Venture Company Of Government Of India & Government Of Uttar Pradesh & Engaged In The Business Of Generation & Supply Of Hydro- Electric As Well As Wind Power & Also Engaged In Construction Of Hydro Power Plants. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.10.2017, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 6,84,04,420/- After Claiming Deduction U/S 80-Ia Of The Act Of Inr 948,40,76,282/-. The Book Profits Was Shown At Inr 7,84,96,09,382/- & Mat Of Inr 1,67,52,32,236/- Was Paid. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & After Considering The Submissions Made, Total Income Was Assessed At Inr 4,63,78,80,698/- By Making Disallowance Out Of Deduction Claimed U/S 80-Ia Of The Act To The Extent Of Inr 211,15,54,378/- & Further Making Addition Of Inr 245,79,21,900/- On Account Of Late Payment Surcharge On Outstanding Debtors For The Period Of 10 Months Holding The Same As Taxable On Accrual Basis & No Deduction U/S 80Ia Was Allowed On Such Addition.

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80I

available at page 1 & 2 of the Paper Book, PCIT initiated revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act proposing the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue on following two issues:- (i) Incorrect claim of deduction u/s 80-IA(iv) of the Act on consultancy income ... assessment order dated 30.12.2019 passed by the Ld. AO u/s 143(3) of the Act was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2.1. That the Hon'ble PCIT has failed to appreciate that the assessment proceedings were completed after adequate and proper enquiries were made

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai vs. PCIT-4, Chennai

ITA 3261/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No 3261/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, No. 2 Dare House, Chennai G.P.O, Parrys, Chennai-600001. V. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Pcit, Chennai Room No 301, 3Rd Floor, Wanaparthy Block, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600034 [Pan: Aabcc 6633 K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से//Assessee By प्रत्योंकों की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : Mr. Sandeep Bagmar, R, Advocate : Mr. Shiva Srinivas, Cit : 25.11.2025 : 18.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Manu Kumar Giri: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.11.2024 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-4 (Hereinafter Referred To As "Pcit") U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, ("The Act") For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020- 21.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 154Section 263Section 80G

provision for IBNR/IBNER and held that the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act dated 19.09.2022 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. With respect to the other two issues (Claim related to deduction u/s. 80G and write off of investment ... issue and the Learned AO has adopted one of the views in this regard, then the assessment order cannot be held as 'erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue'. Reliance in this regard is placed on Para 9 of the decision of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd (Supra) which

Pramod Ramavatar Poddar, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Central Circle, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed of as directed above

ITA 174/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.174/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Pramod Ramavatar Poddar The Pr. Cit, Central Circle बनाम/ 203, Pinnacle Business Prk Ahmedabad – 380 009 V/S. Corporate Road Prahladnagar Ahmedabad – 380 015 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abrpp 6193 R (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri R.P. Rastogi, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr.Cit’] Dated 30/03/2021 Passed In Exercise Of His Revision Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short] For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015- 16. Pramod Ramavatar Poddar Vs. Pr.Cit Asst.Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s Pramod Ramavatar Poddar vs. Pr.CIT Asst.Year: 2015-16 143(3) of the Act, on 20.11.2017 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. He, in exercise of his powers conferred u/s.263 of the Act, set aside the order of the Assessing Officer

Shilpi Modi, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(2), Kolkata

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1965/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2022-2023
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

observed that the AO has not examined and verified the issue in the assessment proceedings thereby rendering the assessment framed to be the erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and consequently, show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act was issued ... accepted the plea of the assessee and allowed the exemption claimed u/s 54 of the Act. Therefore, the assessment order passed is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue which is the main condition for invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that

Ravi Modi, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(2), Kolkata

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1964/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2022-2023
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

observed that the AO has not examined and verified the issue in the assessment proceedings thereby rendering the assessment framed to be the erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and consequently, show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act was issued ... accepted the plea of the assessee and allowed the exemption claimed u/s 54 of the Act. Therefore, the assessment order passed is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue which is the main condition for invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that

Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2763/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

initiating proceedings u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) without bring out as to how the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue. 2 Small Industries Development Bank of India AY 2020-21 2. On the fact and circumstances of the case as well ... PCIT has erred in considering the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Assessing officer as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 4. On the fact and circumstances of the case as well as in Law, the Learned PCIT has erred

Siddharth Bhaskar Shah, Mumbai vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-27, New Mumbai

ITA 3327/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kantι.Τ.Α. Νο. 3327/Mum/2025 Α.Υ: 2022-23 Siddharth Bhaskar Shah Vs Pcit -27 803, Neelkanth Indraprastha, Valley, Rajawadi, Ghatkopar (E) Mumbai - 400077 Pan – Bigps6015Q Room No. 401, 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Vashi Rly Stn, Commercial Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By | Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue By | Shri Vivek Permapurna, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 19.11.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.02.2026 Order Per: Shri. Sandeep Gosain, J.M.: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dt. 24.04.2025 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), By The Pr.Cit(A) For The Assessment Year 2022-23. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Appreciating That Where The A.O. After Detailed Verification Of Record & Making Enquires Had Framed The Assessment, The Revision Powers Conferred On The Principal Cit Under Section 263 Of Act, Cannot Invoked Only Based On A Change Of Opinion. 2

Section 263Section 54F

Order u/s.263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 24.04.2025, without appreciating the fact that the order passed by the A.O. is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax has erred in passing Order u/s.263 of the Income

Mukul Rohatgi, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 61(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2427/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Respondent: Shri Sachit Jolly, Senior Advocate
Section 112ASection 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 24Section 263

that PCIT has not given any basis for recomputing the ALV of this property. Hence, the PCIT cannot hold the assessment order as erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue in terms of Section 263 of the Act. 23. On the other hand, learned CIT-DR relied ... under Section 263 of the Act, but, he must, at least indicate in his order how the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The revisional power under Section 263 of the Act is not meant to be exercised to correct every

Najma, Budaun vs. PCIT, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 89/LKW/2022[F.Y. 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Feb 2026

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

order under section 263 of the Act on the grounds that the original assessment order passed under section 143(3)/147 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and directing AO to frame fresh assessment order (de novo) after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants ... substitute his own view. Grounds No. 6 That the finding of Learned PCIT, Bareilly that order of the learned Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue is factually incorrect, legally misconceived, contrary to evidence on record; and in any case is vague, based on surmiseful considerations

Jatinkumar Patel, Chhatral Kalol vs. Income Tax Office, Ward 1, Mehsana

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

ITA 1907/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT- D.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT- D.R
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263

Principal Commissioner had passed an order under section 263 on 24-03-2024 treating the reassessment order for Assessment Year 2014-15 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and directing that the entire bank credits be brought to tax as Jatinkumar Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year

Kamuthi Solar Power Limited (Merged With Adani Green Energy Twenty -Three Ltd.), Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1242/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalkamuthi Solar Power Limited Vs. Principal Commissioner Of (Merged With Adani Green Income-Tax, Energy Twenty Three Ltd.), Ahmedabad-1 Adani House, Nr. Mithakhali Six Roads, Ahmedabad-380009 [Pan :Aafck 8399 E] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Biren Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri R.P. Rastogi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

record of Ld. Assessing Officer and he duly applied his mind and not made addition. Thus, the assessment order was not erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue. 4. In law and in the facts and the circumstances of the case of the appellant, the Ld. PCIT has erred ... record of Ld. Assessing Officer and he duly applied his mind and not made addition. Thus, the assessment order was not erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue. 5. In law and in the facts and the circumstances of the case of the appellant, the Ld. PCIT has grossly erred

Hollis Vitrified Private Limited, Morbi, Gujarat, India vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Rajkot, Gujarat, India

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

ITA 363/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 363/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Hollis Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No. 756/P1/P1/P1, Opp. Tax-1, Rajkot Antique Granito, Ghuntu,-Lakhdhirpur Road, Morbi (Gujarat)-363642 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacch5628Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil H. Mehta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

facts in not considering the submissions of the appellant in true perspective on the strength of which the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue and therefore, the provisions of Section 263 of the Act were not applicable to the case of the appellant ... assessing officer for each shareholder, to prove identity, creditworthiness and genuineness, therefore assessment order framed by the assessing officer should not be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Page 6 of 37 I.T.A No. 363/Rjt/2024 A.Y. 2018-19 Hollis Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. 5. However

Zensar Technologies Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 3439/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 10ASection 115JSection 142(1)Section 263Section 80GSection 80J

80JJAA of the Act. According to learned PCIT, due to non-examination/improper examination of these issues, the assessment order is not only erroneous but prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Therefore, in exercise of jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act he issued a show cause notice dated 13.03.2025 requiring ... issues and passed the assessment order after proper application of mind. The assessment order so passed cannot be considered as either erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of Revenue so as to empower the PCIT to revise it. Learned PCIT, however did not find merit in the submissions

Studds Accessories Limited, Faridabad vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3570/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalkra, Adv &For Respondent: Sh. Avikal Manu, CIT DR
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 80J

that the issues raised by the Ld. PCIT are already considered during the assessment proceedings, therefore, it do not constitute the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 5. After considering the above submissions Ld. PCIT observed that, Assessing Officer had passed assessment order ... assuming jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act and holding that the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the PCIT erred in arbitrary holding that

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Shri Irfan S/O Sh. Meharban, Bulandshahar

In the result, ground No.4 raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3520/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Bharti Sharma, Adv &For Respondent: Ms. Amish S Gupt, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 68

Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Kanpur vide order passed u/s 263 of the Act dated 27.03.2025, by holding the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and directing the AO to pass fresh order after conducting proper inquiries and investigation. 2.Whether on facts and circumstances ... that the assessment order passed in the case of M/s HMA Agro Industries Ltd. for A.Y. 2018-19 has been found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and has been set aside since the Assessing Officer while making the assessment has not made proper enquiry

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Shri Irfan S/O Sh. Meharban, Bulandshahr

In the result, ground No.4 raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3519/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Bharti Sharma, Adv &For Respondent: Ms. Amish S Gupt, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 68

Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Kanpur vide order passed u/s 263 of the Act dated 27.03.2025, by holding the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and directing the AO to pass fresh order after conducting proper inquiries and investigation. 2.Whether on facts and circumstances ... that the assessment order passed in the case of M/s HMA Agro Industries Ltd. for A.Y. 2018-19 has been found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and has been set aside since the Assessing Officer while making the assessment has not made proper enquiry

Jain Enterprises, Bhilai, Durg vs. PCIT, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as above

ITA 187/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 187/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19) Jain Enterprises, Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 87-B, Light Industrial Area, Raipur-1, Central Revenue Building, Bhilai-490026, C.G. Civil Lines, Raipur, 492001, C.G. Pan: Aagfj3469G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri S. R. Rao, Advocate राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Ram Tiwari, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 11/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2018-19 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.03.2025 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (‘Pcit’) Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263

observing that no enquiry on the issues or non- application of mind for reaching the conclusion and the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, overlooking that specific enquiries were conducted through notice issued u/s.142(1) of the Act on 07/02/2023 and the assessment was completed after ... from the notice issued under section 263 of the Act; therefore, the Ld. PCIT was legally competent and bound to hold the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as the Ld. AO required to examine all aspects of the ITR after reopening of the case, under legal

Anil Tuteja, Fatehabad vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 780/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

jurisdiction. Once the Assessing Officer has taken a possible and legally sustainable view after due enquiry, the assessment order cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue merely because the Principal Commissioner holds a different opinion. Section 263 does not permit substitution of the Commissioner ... basis of “reason to believe”, the revisional jurisdiction under section 263 is attracted where the order passed by the Assessing Officer is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Merely because the reassessment was conducted pursuant to approval of the PCIT does not render the reassessment order

Karan Pratap Singh, Sirsa, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward-1, Sirsa, Haryana

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 761/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

jurisdiction. Once the Assessing Officer has taken a possible and legally sustainable view after due enquiry, the assessment order cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue merely because the Principal Commissioner holds a different opinion. Section 263 does not permit substitution of the Commissioner ... basis of “reason to believe”, the revisional jurisdiction under section 263 is attracted where the order passed by the Assessing Officer is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Merely because the reassessment was conducted pursuant to approval of the PCIT does not render the reassessment order