← 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

Kishor Veljibhai Fofandi, Veraval vs. Pr. CIT, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

ITA 326/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

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

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

assessee, submitted that assessing officer, during the assessment proceedings made detailed enquiry. Hence, order passed by the assessing officer, is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. However, learned DR for the revenue, relied on the stand taken by the learned PCIT. (ii).In respect ... same. Therefore, learned PCIT noticed that order passed by the assessing officer is without proper inquiry and investigation, which is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore, learned PCIT held that assessment order, passed by assessing officer, was without proper examination, and enquiry. Learned Counsel for the assessee

Deepmala Marine Exports, Veraval vs. Pr. CIT, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

ITA 324/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

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

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

assessee, submitted that assessing officer, during the assessment proceedings made detailed enquiry. Hence, order passed by the assessing officer, is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. However, learned DR for the revenue, relied on the stand taken by the learned PCIT. (ii).In respect ... same. Therefore, learned PCIT noticed that order passed by the assessing officer is without proper inquiry and investigation, which is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore, learned PCIT held that assessment order, passed by assessing officer, was without proper examination, and enquiry. Learned Counsel for the assessee

Chunilal Govind Vanik, Veraval vs. Pr. CIT, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

ITA 323/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

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

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

assessee, submitted that assessing officer, during the assessment proceedings made detailed enquiry. Hence, order passed by the assessing officer, is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. However, learned DR for the revenue, relied on the stand taken by the learned PCIT. (ii).In respect ... same. Therefore, learned PCIT noticed that order passed by the assessing officer is without proper inquiry and investigation, which is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore, learned PCIT held that assessment order, passed by assessing officer, was without proper examination, and enquiry. Learned Counsel for the assessee

Sun Exports, Veraval vs. Pr. CIT, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

ITA 322/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

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

Section 11SSection 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

assessee, submitted that assessing officer, during the assessment proceedings made detailed enquiry. Hence, order passed by the assessing officer, is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. However, learned DR for the revenue, relied on the stand taken by the learned PCIT. (ii).In__respect ... same. Therefore, learned PCIT noticed that order passed by the assessing officer is without proper inquiry and investigation, which is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore, learned PCIT held that assessment order, passed by assessing officer, was without proper examination, and enquiry. Learned Counsel for the assessee

Bharatkumar Kalyanjibhai Bhindi, Junagadh vs. PCIT, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

ITA 312/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhasr. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 324/Rjt/2024 322/Rjt/2024 323/Rjt/2024 312/Rjt/2024 326/Rjt/2024 327/Rjt/2024 329/Rjt/2024 331/Rjt/2024 335/Rjt/2024 371/Rjt/2024

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

assessee, submitted that assessing officer, during the assessment proceedings made detailed enquiry. Hence, order passed by the assessing officer, is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. However, learned DR for the revenue, relied on the stand taken by the learned PCIT. (ii).In respect ... same. Therefore, learned PCIT noticed that order passed by the assessing officer is without proper inquiry and investigation, which is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore, learned PCIT held that assessment order, passed by assessing officer, was without proper examination, and enquiry. Learned Counsel for the assessee

Arun Bose, Idukki vs. Income Tax Officer, Thodupuzha

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

ITA 381/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Arun Bose .......... Appellant Pulparambil House, Rajakumari Aruvilanchal P.O., Idukki 685619 [Pan: Bdppp4937G] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps .......... Respondent Mahima Towers, Temple Road, Thodupuzha Appellant By: Shri Mathew Joseph, Ca Respondent By: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 69ASection 69C

Subsequently, on examination of the assessment records, the Pr. CIT formed an opinion the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue for the reason that the AO made addition of Rs. 50,01,695/- disbelieving agricultural income instead of gross receipt ... 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

Muhammad Zameer Qureshi, Bareilly vs. Pr. CIT, Bareilly

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 344/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Muhammad Zameer Qureshi V. The Pcit 180, Azam Nagar Bareilly Bareilly Tan/Pan:Aacpz6783H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Neeraj Kumar, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Neeraj Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 139(4)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 69

holding that the Assessment Order passed by the Ld. AO u/s.147/144B dated 28.03.2022 of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue is bad in law and ultra vires. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal ... Assessing Officer has taken one view with which the Ld. PCIT may not agree; the said orders cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of Revenue unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law. In the present appeal before us, it cannot

Pokharna Educational Trust, Pune vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1244/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21
Section 10Section 10(23)Section 10(230)(iad)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 57

year. Ld.AR submitted that the Assessing Officer has verified the claim of expenditure made u/s.57 of the Act. Therefore, assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Ld.AR submitted that Assessee has shown the fees collected as "Other Income" and Expenditure incurred for running school ... deduction. The so-called expenditure of Rs.64 lakhs was not incurred for earning the Income from Other Sources. Therefore, the Assessment Order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 3.1 The ld.DR further submitted that the so-called donation made by the Assessee to another trust cannot

Satyanarayana Reddy Manne, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 382/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA M.V. Prasad and Shri K.S. Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 251(1)(a)

assessment years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 vide notices u/s 263 dated 23.09.2024 on the ground that, the assessment orders passed u/sec.153C are erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, since they were passed 12 ITA.Nos.382 & 472/Hyd./2025 without bringing to tax the on-money payments made

The Indian Hume Pipe Co Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Mumbai

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

ITA 3262/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3261/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2020-21) & आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3262/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2021-22) The Indian Hume Pipe Co. V/S. Pcit, Mumbai-1 Ltd. बिाम Room No. 330, 3 Rd Floor, 2Nd Floor, Construction Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Expenses, Walchand Road, Mumbai, Hirachand Marg, Ballard Maharashtra-400020 Estate, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact4063D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri S. C. Tiwari & Ms. Navya Chilukumari राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Mr. R. A. Dhyani

For Appellant: Shri S. C. Tiwari & Ms. NavyaFor Respondent: Mr. R. A. Dhyani
Section 143(3)Section 263

genuineness of construction expenses claimed by the assessee. Accordingly, the order u/s 263 was passed on 31.03.2025 holding the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as the same had been completed without undertaking verification of genuineness of the construction expenses. Vide this order, Ld. PCIT directed

The Indian Hume Pipe Co Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Mumbai

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

ITA 3261/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3261/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2020-21) & आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3262/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2021-22) The Indian Hume Pipe Co. V/S. Pcit, Mumbai-1 Ltd. बिाम Room No. 330, 3 Rd Floor, 2Nd Floor, Construction Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Expenses, Walchand Road, Mumbai, Hirachand Marg, Ballard Maharashtra-400020 Estate, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact4063D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri S. C. Tiwari & Ms. Navya Chilukumari राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Mr. R. A. Dhyani

For Appellant: Shri S. C. Tiwari & Ms. NavyaFor Respondent: Mr. R. A. Dhyani
Section 143(3)Section 263

genuineness of construction expenses claimed by the assessee. Accordingly, the order u/s 263 was passed on 31.03.2025 holding the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as the same had been completed without undertaking verification of genuineness of the construction expenses. Vide this order, Ld. PCIT directed

Jsw Steel Coated Products Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Mumbai - 5, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3113/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampura, CIT D/R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

determination can be directed by the Commissioner only after coming to the conclusion that the earlier finding of the Income-tax Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Without doing so, he does not get the power to set aside the assessment. In the instant case ... 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. According to the learned Additional

Mr Manish Jagdish Bajaj, Mumbai vs. PCIT-41, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2758/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Mr. Manish Jagdish Bajaj Pcit-41, Mumbai Flat No. 605,606, 6Th Floor, Farm Room No. 541, Kautilya Manor Chs Adarsh Colony, Marve Vs. Bhava, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Road, Malad (West), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai- 400064 Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400051 Pan No. Aghpb 6661 P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. R A Dhyani, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Suchek Anchaliya
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

held that the assessment or PCIT held that the assessment order passed by the Assessing der passed by the Assessing Officer was both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Officer was both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Officer was both erroneous and prejudicial

Surender Kumar, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward 4 (1), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 351/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 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

Technoblast Mining Corporation, Raigarh vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 307/RPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.307/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Technoblast Mining Corporation 19, 2Nd Floor, Krishna Complex, Chaityana Nagar, Raigarh (C.G.)- 496 001 Pan: Aaeft5992Q

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

existing at that time. The Id. Assessing Officer has considered this fact while making the assessment order. Hence, the assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on this ground." The assessee has relied on the decision of the following cases in support ... considered opinion that order of AO dated 21.04.2021 passed u/s 143(3) r.w. section 1448 of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Hence, we find no infirmity in the impugned order of Id.PCIT revising the order of AO dated 21.04.2021 passed

Binoy John, Trivandrum vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Cochin, Cochin/Kochi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed on grounds of delay and latches

ITA 855/COCH/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Jun 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Binoy John .......... Appellant Tc 2/391, Puthnveetil, Ulloor, Medical College P.O., Thiruvananthapuram 695011 [Pan: Acppj3562K] Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Central, Cochin Appellant By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sundarasan S., Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.06.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Cochin (Pr. Cit) Dated 25.03.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Doctor Deriving Income Under The Head ‘Salary’ & Also A Director In The Company Credence Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram. No Regular Return Of Income For Ay 2016-17 Was Filed By The Appellant. Subsequently, Based On The Information Received From The Acit

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sundarasan S., CIT-DR
Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 5

returned income. Subsequently, on review of the assessment order the ld. Pr.CIT, Central, Kochi formed an opinion that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue for the failure of the AS to examine the issue of deemed dividend

The Ruby Mills Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central) - 8, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3035/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) The Ruby Mills Limited Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 11Th Floor, Ruby House A, Vs (Central)-5, Aayakar Bhawan, J.K. Sawant Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai – 400028. [Pan No. Aaact0220G] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68Section 80G

assessee. Accordingly, same needs to be added back to the income of assessee. This resulted under assessment of income. Thus, assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The assessee was asked to file reply n 06.03.2025. The assessee filed its reply dated ... passed without making enquiries or verification which should have been made and allow relief without enquiry on claim. Thus, the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The assessing officer was directed to pass the fresh assessment order in accordance with law after making enquiries

Shri Jaiteshwar Seva Sansthan, Jodhpur vs. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 344/JODH/2025[NA]Status: FixedITAT Jodhpur26 Jun 2025

Bench: Us By Challenging The Revisional Order.

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(4)Section 2(5)Section 263

Rs.12,547/-. The Ld. PCIT by invoking provisions of section 263 issued notice to the assessee by treating this assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The 5 points was asked to explain by the Ld.PCIT in his impugned notice. But finally, related ... rented property and the expenses related to excise duty, GST expenses and sales-tax expenses amount to Rs.11,54,204.12 was treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, which was not considered by the Ld.AO, by invoking provisions of section 263 of the Act. The aggrieved

Shree Ram Colloids Private Limited, Jodhpur vs. Principal CIT(1), Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 344/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeshree Ram Colloids Private Vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax (1), Jodhpur C-79, Mia, Phase-Ii, Jodhpur- 342 005 Pan: Aakcs5803L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

Rs.12,547/-. The Ld. PCIT by invoking provisions of section 263 issued notice to the assessee by treating this assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The 5 points was asked to explain by the Ld.PCIT in his impugned notice. But finally, related ... rented property and the expenses related to excise duty, GST expenses and sales-tax expenses amount to Rs.11,54,204.12 was treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, which was not considered by the Ld.AO, by invoking provisions of section 263 of the Act. The aggrieved

Ct. Ramanathan (HUF), Pudukkottai vs. PCIT 1, Madurai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 761/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.761/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21 C.T.Ramanathan(Huf), Income Tax Officer, No.7/45, Ct.Rm.S.House, M.St.S. Street Ward-1, Kulipirai, Pudukottai Dist, Pudukottai. Tamil Nadu-622 402. [Pan: Aaahc0701L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.V.Subbarayan, Dcit(Retd.) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.M.K.Biju, Cir Dr By Virtual. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr.V.Subbarayan, DCIT(Retd.)For Respondent: Mr.M.K.Biju, CIR DR by virtual
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3

taken one of the plausible views which the Ld. PCTT does not agree with, it cannot be treated as erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of revenue, unless the view taken by the Ld. AO is unsustainable in law. 13. We may refer recent judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi ... Section 263 of the Act delineates certain conditions and circumstances when the order passed by the AO can be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. 20. Clause (a) of Explanation 2 to Section 263 of the Act further stipulates that if an order is passed without making