← 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

Abhay Ispat (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Mumbai - 6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3575/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80G

erred in considering the order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Assessing officer as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. On the fact and circumstances of the case as well ... basis that CSR expenditure is not voluntary in nature, the learned PCIT set aside the assessment order and held the same to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Further, the learned AR submitted that this issue is no longer res integra and has been decided

Kodiyil Muhammed Madani, Taliparamba vs. DCIT, Centralcircle 1, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 345/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

stood thus, the learned PCIT on review of the assessment record, formed an opinion that the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for the reason that AO had failed to examine the taxability of Rs.11,74,046/- as salary received ... contents of the loose-sheets found during the course of search indicating the payment of perquisites to the employees, rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue and the learned PCIT rightly exercised the power of revision and, therefore, no interference is called for. 7 Meat

Kodiyil Muhammed Madani, Taliparamba vs. DCIT, Centralcircle 1, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 344/COCH/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

stood thus, the learned PCIT on review of the assessment record, formed an opinion that the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for the reason that AO had failed to examine the taxability of Rs.11,74,046/- as salary received ... contents of the loose-sheets found during the course of search indicating the payment of perquisites to the employees, rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue and the learned PCIT rightly exercised the power of revision and, therefore, no interference is called for. 7 Meat

Kodiyil Muhammed Madani, Taliparamba vs. DCIT, Centralcircle 1, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 343/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

stood thus, the learned PCIT on review of the assessment record, formed an opinion that the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for the reason that AO had failed to examine the taxability of Rs.11,74,046/- as salary received ... contents of the loose-sheets found during the course of search indicating the payment of perquisites to the employees, rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue and the learned PCIT rightly exercised the power of revision and, therefore, no interference is called for. 7 Meat

Kodiyil Muhammed Madani, Taliparamba vs. DCIT, Centralcircle 1, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 342/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

stood thus, the learned PCIT on review of the assessment record, formed an opinion that the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for the reason that AO had failed to examine the taxability of Rs.11,74,046/- as salary received ... contents of the loose-sheets found during the course of search indicating the payment of perquisites to the employees, rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue and the learned PCIT rightly exercised the power of revision and, therefore, no interference is called for. 7 Meat

Kodiyil Muhammed Madani, Taliparamba vs. DCIT, Centralcircle 1, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 341/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

stood thus, the learned PCIT on review of the assessment record, formed an opinion that the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for the reason that AO had failed to examine the taxability of Rs.11,74,046/- as salary received ... contents of the loose-sheets found during the course of search indicating the payment of perquisites to the employees, rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue and the learned PCIT rightly exercised the power of revision and, therefore, no interference is called for. 7 Meat

Keeran Muhammed Basheer, Kannur vs. DCIT, Centralcircle 1, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 340/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

stood thus, the learned PCIT on review of the assessment record, formed an opinion that the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for the reason that AO had failed to examine the taxability of Rs.11,74,046/- as salary received ... contents of the loose-sheets found during the course of search indicating the payment of perquisites to the employees, rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue and the learned PCIT rightly exercised the power of revision and, therefore, no interference is called for. 7 Meat

Hester Bioscience Limited, Mehsana vs. The Pr.CIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1084/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 201Section 263Section 40Section 80G

that the assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act passed by the Faceless Assessing Officer (“FAO”) is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue inasmuch as there is no error by the FAO while passing the impugned assessment order and the order ... provision of section 115BAA of the Act are adjudicated by the FAO at the time of assessment proceedings and hence same is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and that it amounts to change of opinion which is not permitted. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter

Eris Lifesciences Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is also allowed for A

ITA 1038/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 263

under this head stood at ₹7.72 crores. The Principal Commissioner held that the A.O.’s decision not to disallow the full amount was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, as the CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2012 dated 01.08.2012 clearly prohibits such deductions, particularly when ... Principal Commissioner, therefore, set aside the assessment order to this extent, invoking powers under section 263 of the Act, holding it to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 4. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by Ld. PCIT setting-aside

Eris Lifesciences Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is also allowed for A

ITA 1037/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 263

under this head stood at ₹7.72 crores. The Principal Commissioner held that the A.O.’s decision not to disallow the full amount was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, as the CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2012 dated 01.08.2012 clearly prohibits such deductions, particularly when ... Principal Commissioner, therefore, set aside the assessment order to this extent, invoking powers under section 263 of the Act, holding it to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 4. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by Ld. PCIT setting-aside

Indur Thanwerdas Dadlani, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax PCIT, Mumbai-42, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed without any order as to cost

ITA 2476/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarindur Thanwerdas Dadlani Vs. Pr. Cit Flat No. 4604, The Imperial Mumbai – 42 Towers, Mp Mill Compound, Room No. 741, Aayakar Bb Nakashe Marg, Mardeo, Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai – 400034. Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Aacpd5262D (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 57Section 74

filed by the assessee, the AO had passed order of assessment. Therefore the said order cannot be revised as the same is not ‘erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue’. 4. Whereas on the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by Ld. PCIT. 5. We have ... also remained unverified therefore he reached to the conclusion that the assessment order passed by AO is ‘erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue’. 6. Whereas after having gone through the detailed submissions and documents filed by the assessee before the AO during the course of assessment

Ravinder, Gurgaon vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4865/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19

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

Viralbhai Vinodbhai Karia, Rajkot vs. ITO WD 3(1)(1), RKT, Rajkot

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

ITA 270/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: ShriD. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.CIT(DR)
Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 69Section 69ASection 69B

PCIT exercised his jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act, and noted that the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B dated 17/04/2021 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.  On perusal of record, it was notices by Ld. PCIT that during the course of survey proceedings carried ... However, the Ld. PCIT rejected the above contention of the assessee and stated that impugned order of assessment dated 17.04.2021 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue Ld. PCIT directed to AO to make fresh assessment to the extent of the issue discussed above and hence

Nayara Energy Limited (Formerly Known As Essar Oil Limited ), Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Centre -1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse bearing

ITA 3504/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeenayara Energy Limited Vs The Principal Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As ‘Essar Oil Income-Tax (Central), Mumbai-1 10Th Limited’), Room No.1001, Floor, 5Th Floor, Jet Airways Godrej Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Bkc Plot No.C-68, G Block, Annexe, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra 020 East, Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Aaace0890P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(3)Section 14ASection 263

under section 144C of the Act. The Ld. PCIT, by invoking provisions of section 263 of the Act, treated this assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in regard to the nature of income of capital expenditure, which was treated by the assesse was revenue ... assessee complied with the said notice issued under section 263 of the Act. Finally, the Ld. PCIT treated this assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and set aside the said assessment order. Being aggrieved, the assesse filed an appeal before us. 3. The Ld.AR

Shree Society, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 226/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.226/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shree Society Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward 1(5) Pan:Aanas1911Q Visakhapatnam (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri I Rama Sastry, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30/03/2024 Of The Learned Pr.Cit Passed U/S 263 R.W.S. 254 Of The Act For The A.Y 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri I Rama Sastry, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

fact that the Ld.PCIT treated the assessment order passed by the AO (ITO, Ward- 1(5), Visakhapatnam) u/s 143(3) dated 02.12.2019 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and accordingly set aside the assessment to the file of the A0(Income Tax Officer), Ward

Rejis Joseph, Ernakulam vs. ITO, Ward 3, Aluva

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 390/COCH/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2011-12 Rejis Joseph .......... Appellant Mookath House, Kottuvally, Koonamavu, Ernakulam. [Pan: Akcpr 3437 J] Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Aluva .......... Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

Subsequently, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Kochi-2 (for short, ‘PCIT’) on examination of the assessment record opined that assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and accordingly, set aside the assessment and directed the AO to bring the tax on receipt of interest

Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Thiruvananthapuram vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (E), Kochi

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

ITA 387/COCH/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2021-22 Kerala Industrial Infrastructure .......... Appellant Development Corporation Sasthamangalam P.O.. Thiruvananthapuram 695010 [Pan: Aabck0384K] Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) , Kochi......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Rajeev Ca Respondent By: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

Accordingly, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), formed an opinion that the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. Accordingly, a show cause notice u/s. 263 of the Act was issued on 21.02.2025 proposing revision of the assessment order ... conferred the power of revision on the Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 263 of the Act in case the assessment order passed is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. In order to invoke the power of revision, the above two conditions are required to be satisfied cumulatively. References

A Menarini India Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 877/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 92C

Thus the Assessing Officer has not verified the above expenses totaling Rs.16,68,02,397/- during assessment proceedings which is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Therefore a show cause notice was issued to the assessee. The assessee replied to the show cause notice which was not found ... PCIT Market Development Expenses, Advertisement & Publicity Expenses and Royalty expenses for determination of ALP u/s 92CA of the Act which is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Ld. PCIT further directed the A.O. to pass fresh assessment order in accordance with law after duly examining the facts

Shree Siddhi Infrabuild Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1021/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1021/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shree Siddhi Infrabuild Private Limited D-1001, Ganesh Meridian Opp. Kargil Petrol Pump Nr. Gujarat High Court Ahmedabad – 380 060 बनाम / V/S.\The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 Ambawadi Ahmedabad – 380 014 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aalcs 4509 A (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By : Ms.Shrunjal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.P. Rastogi, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Hereinafter Referred To As “Pcit”) Dated 15/03/2024 Passed U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") For The

For Appellant: Ms.Shrunjal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 263

submissions made by the assessee. He observed that the assessment order dated 10/04/2021 passed by the AO u/s.143(3) of the Act, was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue on the issue of failure to make accurate disallowance u/s.14A of the Act. He, therefore, exercised his revision jurisdiction ... appeal before us. 4. The Ld.AR of the assessee has vehemently submitted that the impugned assessment order passed by the AO was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. That the assessment order in question was passed by the AO after due application of mind and considering

Shrisant Savtamali Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Ahilyanagar vs. Pr. CIT - 1, Pune

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

ITA 972/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: CA Payal R. Rathi &For Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

After considering the reply furnished by the assessee, Ld. PCIT, Pune-1 was of the view that the assessment order dated 02.08.2022 is erroneous and prejudicial 4 to the interests of the Revenue and accordingly exercising his powers u/s 263 of the IT Act he set-aside the assessment order