← 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

M/S Prefect Footwear, Agra vs. Pr.CIT., (Centrl), Kanpur

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 23/AGR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.23/Agr/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Perfect Footwear Pr. Cit (Central), बनाम/ 76, Kailash Vihar Kanpur. Vs. Bye Pass Road, Agra -282005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aarfp-0237-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sushil Maheshwari, Ca – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assails Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Kanpur (Pr.Cit) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 Vide Impugned Order Dated 15-03-2021 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 14-12-2018. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, Our Adjudication Would Be As Under. 2. Upon Perusal Of Assessment Order, It Could Be Seen That The Assessee’S Return Of Income Was Selected For Scrutiny. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Notices Were Issued To The Assessee U/S 142(1) On Various Issues Which Were Duly Responded To By The Assessee In E-Proceedings. The Assessment Order Take Note

For Appellant: Sh. Sushil Maheshwari, CA – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

been alleged that due enquiries were not made by Ld. AO. However, there is no finding as to how the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In the absence of such specific finding, the impugned revision of the order could not be upheld ... enquiries were made. It could also be noted that Ld. Pr. CIT has not recorded any finding as to how the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue which run contrary to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case

Gdp Agro & Food Products Pvt Ltd, Gwalior vs. P CIT, Gwalior

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 675/AGR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Deependra Mohan, CA – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263

held the cash transactions and unaccounted purchases were not considered by Ld.AO. Accordingly, the assessment order was held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and Ld. AO was directed to pass fresh order. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. Upon perusal ... these arguments have been met by Ld. Pr. CIT in the impugned order. Without specific finding as to how the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, the impugned revision could not be sustained in law. It is another aspect that the fact of survey was duly

Ashok Kumar Sharma, Morena vs. Pr. CIT, Gwalior

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 370/AGR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Navin Gargh, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

were made on all the issues during assessment proceedings itself. However, rejecting the same, Ld. Pr. CIT held the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and directed Ld. AO to pass fresh order after examining all the aspects thoroughly. Aggrieved, the assessee ... possible and the Income-tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. The said principal has been

Pramod Kumar Goyal, Gwalior vs. Pr. CIT, Gwalior

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 368/AGR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 368/Agr/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Pramod Kumar Goyal Pr. Cit बनाम/ (Prop. M/S. Shreyansh Traders) Gwalior Chhutmal Ki Bajariya, Maina Wali Gali, Vs. Dal Bazar, Gwalior(Mp). "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Agspg-1575-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Navin Gargh, Adv. – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assails Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gwalior (Pr.Cit) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Vide Impugned Order Dated 23-03-2018 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 23-03-2016. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, Our Adjudication Would Be As Under. 2. Upon Perusal Of Assessment Order, It Could Be Seen That The Assessee’S Return Of Income Was Scrutinized & During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Notices U/S 142(1) Were Issued Raising Various Queries Against The Assessee. The Assessee Claimed Exemption U/S 54B. Upon Perusal Of Computations & Various

For Appellant: Sh. Navin Gargh, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50CSection 54B

sale by the assessee. Further, Ld. AO did not invoke the provisions of Sec.50C. Accordingly, the assessment order was held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and Ld. AO was directed to pass fresh order on all these issues. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further ... possible and the Income-tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. The said principal has been

Shri Vinay Chaurasia, Chhatarpur vs. P. CIT, Gwalior

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 89/AGR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sharma, Adv. – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

holding any share in that entity during the year. However, rejecting the same, Ld. Pr. CIT held the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and directed Ld. AO to pass fresh order on three issues. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before ... matter of fact, which could not be done directly could not be done indirectly. Accordingly, the assessment could not be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on these two issues. So far as the capital introduction in cash is concerned, it could be seen

Pushp Raj Bohra, Jalore vs. Pr. CIT – 1, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 374/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Ble

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

read with section 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act by the National Faceless Assessment Centre dated 05-04-2021 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 2. The assesse has taken the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances ... lease land details, sale invoices, bank statement, expenses incurred etc. Therefore, the assessment order passed by the AO could not be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. In support, he placed reliance on the following case laws:- i. Malabar Industrial

Shri Ganesh Serva Seva Sangha Shripur, Solapur vs. CIT(E), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1230/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1230/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

views are possible and the ITO has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the ITO is unsustainable in law. It has been held by this Court ... income in his hands on his so offering, the order passed by the Assessing Officer accepting the same as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue - Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal

Meenamani Ganga Builder LLP, Pune vs. PCIT (Central), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1027/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1027/Pun/2024

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 263Section 263(1)Section 68

assessment proceedings by the AO. The AO should have verified/enquired/examined this issue.” 6. Ld.PCIT accordingly held that the assessment dated 20.04.2021 is erroneous and prejudicial so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue as the AO has passed the assessment without making necessary examination/ verification/enquiries on the issues related ... Note) 2. 3. 3. Also, the Ld. PCIT had not raised any issue with regard to unsecured loan that lead the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue for the all these assessment years (copy of order passed for AY 2018-19 submitted during the course

Hariram Hospital, Alwar vs. PCIT, Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1535/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1535/JPR/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Hariram Hospital Bye Pass Road Hariram Hospital Bhiwadi, Alwar – 310 019 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The Pr.CIT (Central) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAFFH 5746 M अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Himanshu Goyal, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Da

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

satisfy the mandatory twin conditions u//s 263 of the Act i.e. that the order passed by the AO must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The assessment order was neither erroneous in law nor caused any prejudice to the interest of revenue. (b) That ... applying their mind independently as required under the law. (e) That the ld PCIT failed to demonstrate how the assessment order was erroneous or prejudicial to the Revenue. Their findings were based on assumptionrather than corroborative evidence which does not meet the statutory requirements of Section 263. (f) That

Daya Ram, Gurgaon vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2268/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwaldaya Ram, Vs. Pcit, Village Patauda Khera, Rohtak Po Patauda, Distt-Jhajjar, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Avrpr0237L Assessee By : Shri Jai Bhagwan Saini, Adv Revenue By: Shri Surender Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2025

For Appellant: Shri Jai Bhagwan Saini, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

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

Modi Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT - 4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 421/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganeshmodi Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Pr. Cit, Delhi-4 1311, Modi Tower, 98, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacm2303F

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

This assessment was sought to be revised by the Learned PCIT on the ground that the same is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. A show- cause notice under Section 263 of the Act stood issued to the assessee on 15-02- 2020. The Learned PCIT observed

Indo Pacific Finlease Ltd, Chandigarh vs. PCIT- Chandigarh 1, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals are filed by the

ITA 449/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shrilaliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं . / I.T.A. Nos.448 & 449/Chd/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Sh.Rohit Sharma, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 203(1)Section 263

were as per SOP issued by the CIBDI also and assessment was under faceless scheme. The order passed by the AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue, hence the order of PCIT should be set aside. 6. That the learned PCIT has erred in invoking explanation ... carried out by the AO, failing which the earlier passed u/s 147 r.w.s.144B of the Act would be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue as also provided in Explanation 2(a) to Section 263(1) of the Act. The arguments and position taken

Indo Pacific Finlease Ltd, Chandigarh vs. PCIT Chandigarh 1, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals are filed by the

ITA 448/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shrilaliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं . / I.T.A. Nos.448 & 449/Chd/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Vs Pcitchandigarh 1, Chandigarh Indo Pacific Finlease Ltd., Sco-98-99, Sector 34 Sub City Centre, Chandigarh 160002 स्थायीलेखासं./Panno. Aaaci2176E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By : Sh. Ashok Goel, C.A. Revenue By : Sh.Rohit Sharma, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing :19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement ;16/04/2025 Physical Hearing Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M.: Both The Appeals Are Being Filed By The Assessee, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chandigarh-1 Dated 28.03.2024& 23.03.2024 U/S 263 For The Assessment Years: 2014-15& 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Common Grounds Of Appeal In Ita Nos.448 & 449/Chd/2024 As Under:

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Sh.Rohit Sharma, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 203(1)Section 263

were as per SOP issued by the CIBDI also and assessment was under faceless scheme. The order passed by the AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue, hence the order of PCIT should be set aside. 6. That the learned PCIT has erred in invoking explanation ... were as per SOP issued by the CIBDI also and assessment was under faceless scheme. The order passed by the AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue, hence the order of PCIT should be set aside. 6. That the learned PCIT has erred in invoking explanation

Singanamala Sarala, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 200/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, C.AFor Respondent: : Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 263Section 269S

revenue. Accordingly, the Ld. PCIT treated the order passed by the Ld. AO and the approval granted by Addl. CIT , as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, and issued show cause notice u/s.263 of the Act on 28.12.2023 to the assessee. After considering the submission ... submitted that, if the Ld. AO has not recorded his satisfaction in assessment order, then the order of the Ld. AO become erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In the present case, the Ld. AO failed to record his satisfaction, hence, in accordance with the decisions

Grade One Events Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Circle- 1, Ghaziabad

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 1831/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 A.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2019-20 A.Y. 2018-19

Section 24Section 263Section 263(1)

That initiation of impugned revisionary proceeding u/s 263 of the act was bad in law as being the original assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue as per Explanation 2 to section 263 of the act as necessary enquiry was duly conducted during original assessment ... views are possible and the ITO has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the ITO is unsustainable in law. It has been held by the Supreme

Harikrishna Jewels, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat

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

ITA 354/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.354/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (Physical Court Hearing) Harikrishna Jewels, Principal Commissioner Of 201, Sunstar Building, Opp. बनाम/ Income Tax-1,, Surat, Room New Patidar Bhavan, No.123, Aaykar Bhawan, Near Vs. Mahidharpura, Surat-395 Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil 003 Hospital, Surat -395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aagfh 3864 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 10.02.2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 15.04.2025

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 263

passing the order u/s 263, although the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. ITA No.354/SRT/2023 /AY 12-13 Harikrishna Jewels 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well ... Ld.PCIT has rightly relied on various decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court to hold that the order of AO was both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue u/s 263 of the Act. 7. We have heard rival submissions and perused materials on record. We have also deliberated upon

The Yanam Co Operative Stores Limited, Yanam vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 45/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Harsha Haridasu, C.AFor Respondent: : Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 237Section 263

used for the benefit of the assessee. The Ld. PCIT also observed that the refund granted by the Ld. AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, the order of Ld. AO was set aside by Ld. PCIT and the Ld. AO was directed to withdraw

Dhwani Finserve Pvt Ltd, Rajkot vs. Principal Commissoner of Income Tax-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 389/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Apr 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Naimish Vayawala &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 263

therefore, the Ld.PCIT wanted that these documents are essential to be examined by the AO, therefore, the order passed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Ld.CIT-DR submitted that these are additional documents required by the Ld.PCIT, which were to be submitted ... orders or proceedings of the lower authorities and to effect a correction, if so needed, particularly if the order or proceeding is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. This provision occurs in a taxing statute whose object is to raise revenue for the State and an enabling

Smt. Shipra Vig, Yamuna Nagar vs. Pr. CIT, Panchkula

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 411/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

aside the order as passed by the AO, ward- 4, Yamuna Nagar u/s 143(3) vide order, dated 29.12.2019 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and directed for the fresh assessment to be made by the AO. 2. The following grounds of appeals have been taken ... assessee:- "1. That the Ld. PCIT, Panchkula has erred in assuming the jurisdiction u/s 263 and holding the same as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and canceling the assessment already framed u/s 143(3) vide, order, dated 29.12.2019. 2 2. That the Ld. PCIT has also erred

Diamond Hosiery Mills Private Limited, Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ward -7(1), Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 363/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपीलसं . / ITA No.363 /Chd/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Diamond Hosiery Mills Private बनाम The ITO Limited Ward-7(1), 620/8, Kundan Puri, Civil Lines, Ludhiana Ludhiana स्थायीलेखासं./PAN NO: AABCD7485Q अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A राजस्वकी ओर से / Revenue by : Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date of Hearing : 20/01/202

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Ludhiana under Section 143(3) of the Act, on the grounds that it was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The assessee challenges the validity of the revision order, contending that the PCIT’s action is unjustified ... 10/03/2022, alleging that the AO failed to verify the genuineness of the share capital increase and the share premium, rendering the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue’s interest. After considering the assessee’s reply dated 21st March 2022, the PCIT set aside the assessment order and directed