“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

Here Solutions India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6658/MUM/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR

Section 144C(5)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80G(1)(i)Section 80G(5)

then to take a different view in a revisionary jurisdiction u/s.263, cannot be held that the order of the ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. There is no case of invoking Explanation 2 to Section 263 which ld. PCIT has done, because ... satisfied. Thus, allowing the claim of deduction u/s.80G by the ld. AO cannot be held to be unsustainable in law or amounts to erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Thus order of the Ld. PCIT is reversed on this point. 12. Thus, we hold that ld. PCIT

Vijay Raaz, Godbundar Road, Dist. Thane vs. Ward 16(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 3416/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Vijay Raaz Ward 16(1)(5), Mumbai Cottage No. B-13, Cosmos Hawaiian, Near Blue Roof Club, Ghodbunder Vs. Road, Thane, West 400 601. Pan/Gir No. Adlpr8784L (Appellant) (Respondent) :

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 29ASection 80G

claim after due verification as he failed to bring on record any findings which proves that the order of learned assessing officer is Erroneous and Prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 2. The order passed u/s 143(3) is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Reliance ... interest of the revenue and further for invoking the revisionary powers the twin condition that the assessment order has to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue ought to be established. The ld. AR also argued on the merits that the assessee had paid donation

Vandanaben Rajbhai Parikh, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 1135/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 80G

calling upon her to explain as to why the assessment order dated 30.08.2022 should not be revised on the ground that it was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. In response, the assessee submitted a detailed reply contending that the issue of deduction under section 80GGC ... scope and object of section 263, emphasizing that the provision empowers the Commissioner to revise an assessment order if it is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. It was observed that an order can be regarded as erroneous not only when it is contrary

Bajaj Finance Limited, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Pune

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

ITA 565/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2019-20 Bajaj Finance Limited Pcit-3, Pune 3Rd Floor, Panchshil Tech Park, Vs. Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aabcb1518L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 06-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-01-2026

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 41Section 80J

admissibility under the relevant provisions of law. Hence, he was of the opinion that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. He, therefore, issued a show cause notice asking the assessee to explain as to why the provisions of section ... Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 8, Pune (hereinafter referred to as learned AO) under section 143(3) of the Act was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and thus, the order under section 263 of the Act is without jurisdiction

Anumita Infrastructure Private Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT-4, Mumbai

ITA 2555/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 151ASection 263

passed by the Assessing Officer under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act for A.Y. 2017-18 was held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and was set aside with directions. Facts of the Case 2. The assessee is a private limited company ... these alleged transactions.The PCIT formed a prima facie view that the assessment order passed under section 147 read with section 144B was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue due to lack of enquiry. Accordingly, notices under section 263 were issued on 04.12.2024 and 15.01.2025. 7. In response

Cone Craft Paper Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. PCIT-1, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed

ITA 3592/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

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

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

hereinafter referred to ‘the Act’) wherein the assessment order dated 1 Cone Craft Paper Pvt. Ltd., Delhi 23.12.2022 was held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and Assessing Officer (‘AO’) was directed to pass a fresh order taking necessary remedial action as per direction ... Principal CIT 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 the revenue, without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. On the fact and circumstances of the case

Manoj Kumar, Panipat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Panipat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3378/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Manoj Kumar Vs Ito Prop. Avitex India, Barsat Ward-1 Road, Opp.Kirpal Ashram, Panipat Panipat, Haryana-132103. Pan-Aaepo2553J Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, Ca Revenue By Ms. Amisha S.Gutpa, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rohtak [“Ld. Pr. Cit”] U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 24.02.2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 18.10.2018, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 5,12,820/-. Based On The Available That The Assessee Had Accepted Accommodation Entries In The Form Of Bogus Purchases From M/S. Soni Textiles Of Inr 11,47,500/-, Case Was Re-Opened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 On 29.03.2022. In Response To The Notice, Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 25.11.2022, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 5,12,820/-. Thereafter, Various Notices Were Issued From Time To Time However, Were Remained Uncompiled With. Thereafter, Ao Vide Order Dated 24.02.2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Assessed The Income Of The Assessee At Inr 16,60,320/- By Making Addition Of Alleged Bogus Purchases.

Section 147Section 148Section 15BSection 263Section 37(1)Section 69C

appellate authority.” 5. As all grounds of appeal taken with respect to the action of the PCIT in holding the reassessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue therefore, they are taken together for consideration. 6. Before us, Ld. AR submits that the AO has made ... that the provisions of section 69C cannot be invoked on the facts of the present case and, therefore, the assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Regarding the directions of the ld. PCIT for making fresh enquiries and investigation, ld. AR submits that from

Allen Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. DCIT Central Circle, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2355/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Grover, Shri Viral Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 263(1)

section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') setting aside the assessment framed under section 143(3) by Ld. AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue is wholly unreasonable, uncalled for, bad in law and void ab-initio ... appellant prays that your honour hold that the order passed by the Ld. AO was after making proper inquiry and was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and hence the order passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT u/s 263 setting aside the assessment order

Liberty Shoes Ltd, Liberty Puram G.T.Karnal Road Kutail Distt Karnal vs. PCIT Rohtak Haryana, DCIT Karnal Haryana

ITA 2206/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

before PCIT wherein the assessee has specifically pointed out that each and every allegation made by PCIT to hold the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue were examined by the AO and necessary replies were already filed before the AO who after considering the said ... said that the AO has not made any enquiry or verification on this issue for which the order could be held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 7. Regarding increase in trade payables and short-term borrowings, Ld.AR submits that AO had made query this regard which

Mahender Malik, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward -(1), Hisar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5586/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 Sh. Mahender Malik, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 388, Satroad Khurad, Near Ward-1, Adarsh High School, Hisar Hisar Pan: Bitpm5341N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Karishma Rathore, Adv. Sh. Mayank Patawari, Adv. Department By Sh. Yogeshwar Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short, The “Cit(A)/Nfac”], Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1069269047(1), Dated 30.09.2024 Involving Proceedings Under Section 154 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. For The Reasons Stated In The Assessee’S Condonation Averments, Delay Of 3 Days In Filing Of The Instant Appeal Is Condoned In Light Of Collector, Land & Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 Itr 471 (Sc). 3. It Emerges During The Course Of Hearing That The Sole Substantive Issue Between The Parties Is That Of Correctness Of The Learned Lower Authorities’ Action Assessing The Assessee’S Interest Component Of Land Acquisition Compensation U/S 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, While Invoking Section 57(Iv) R.W.S. 56(1)(A) R.W.S. 145A(B) Of The Act. 4. Learned Sr. Dr Representing The Department Vehemently Argued That The Instant Issue Is No More Res Integra In Light Of Mahender Pal Narang Vs. Cbdt (2020) 423 Itr 13 (P&H) As Well As Pcit Vs. Inderjit Singh Sodhi Huf (2024) 161 Taxmann.Com 301 (Del.) Wherein The Department Has Succeeded Before Their Lordships That The Impugned Interest Component Ought To Be Assessed As Income From “Other” Sources Only.

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 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

Shanti Developers, Rajkot vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(2), Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

ITA 274/RJT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 827/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shanti Developers The Dcit, Circle – 1(1), V-88, Opp. S.R.P. Quarter, 150Ft Ring Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Race Course Road, Ghanteshwar, Jamnagar Road, Ring Road, Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360006 Rajkot (Gujarat) – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abpfs2815R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Singh, Ld. CIT(DR)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(3)

without making inquiries or verification which should have been made. The, Pr.CIT-1, Rajkot observed that the order passed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 6. Accordingly, in order to pass an appeal effect order, under section 143(3) r.w.s.263

Shanti Developers, Rajkot vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

ITA 827/RJT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Singh, Ld. CIT(DR)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(3)

Bansilal Ramnath Agarwal Charitable Trust, Pune vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 1357/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Bansilal Ramnath Agarwal Charitable Trust Cit (Exemption), 251, Budhwar Peth, City Post Chowk, Vs. Pune Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaatb4383K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-01-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, V.P:

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

time and observed that the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) for assessment year 2020-21 appears to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue within the meaning of section 263 of the Act. He, therefore, issued a show cause notice dated 18.02.2025 asking ... necessity and reasonableness of the payments made to Investronaut and M/s Agrath, he was of the opinion that the assessment order has become erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 11 10. In view of the above, the Ld. CIT(Exemption) held that the Assessing Officer has failed

Rajasekhar Naidu Galla, Tirupati vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Tirupathi

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

ITA 917/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

under Section 263 of the Act treating the completion of assessment proceedings under Section 14313) of the Act hy the Assessing Officer as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the impugned order passed ... been passed without jurisdiction as the assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act which is sought to be revised was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 4. The Ld. Pr. CIT ought to have appreciated, inter alia, that the Assessing Officer has considered

Bscpl Aurang Tollway Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 612/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay, wherein it was submitted that the appeal for the relevant assessment year was required to be filed within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, the

Section 143(3)Section 263

Section 263 amounts to change of opinion which is not permissible under the act. 2 The order of Ld. AO is not erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue as the appellant company is having exclusive right, license and authority to construct, operate and maintain the project till ... response to show-cause notice, the assessee submitted that, the assessment order passed by the A.O. is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, because all the facts relating to formation of a Special Purpose Vehicle, details of agreement entered into with NHAI and works carried

Ministry of Communications Employees Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Bangalore vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-1, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1120/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Aprameya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

PCIT held that the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act dated 21.09.2022 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, inasmuch as the AO had allowed the deduction claimed under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act on interest income ... section 263, it is well settled law that the Principal Commissioner is empowered to revise an assessment order where the same is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. An order passed without making enquiries or verification which ought to have been made is deemed

Adarsha Souharda Sahakari Niyamit Sirsi, Sirsi vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Huballi

ITA 1165/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Prakash Hegde, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)

necessary information and documents while passing the Assessment Order under section 143(3) of the Act and therefore, the Assessment Order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 4. That the PCIT has erred in the facts and circumstances of the case by passing the impugned ... assessee submitted that the ld. Principal Commissioner have no power to substitute the judgement as taken by the AO and held to be erroneous and prejudicial interest to the revenue especially when the AO has taken one of the plausible view. Lastly, the ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that

J.B Petit High School for Girls, Mumbai vs. CIT(Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4667/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar Sayal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampura, (CIT DR

Section 143Section 263

noted that the assessment was completed without making necessary enquiry or verification which should have been made. Hence, the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. (ii) Further, it is seen from the record that during the year, the assessee Trust has received ... without making necessary 3 J.B. Petiti High School for Girls enquiry or verification which should have been made. Hence, the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. (iii) Additionally, during the year, the assessee applied a sum of Rs. 7,73,39,821/-towards the objects

Bajaj Auto Limited, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax - 3, Mumbai

ITA 2666/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

For Appellant: Mr. P.J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 145(2)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 40

following grounds: 1. The Learned PCIT erred in holding the assessment order for the captioned AY as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, treating the same as passed without any enquiry. 2. The Learned PCIT erred in not appreciating the fact that, on some of the issues ... given issue and the Learned AO has adopted one possible view, the order passed by the AO cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue within meaning of section 263 of the Act and any attempt made by the Learned PCIT to revise the assessment

The Pursottam Farmers Co.Op. Cotton Ginning & Pressing Society Ltd., Surat vs. The DCIT, Circle 2(1) (1), Surat

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

ITA 804/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Surat22 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 263Section 80P(2)(d)

which is in consonance with the various decisions of the Court as a twin condition invoking section 263 as to the assessment being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue are not being fulfilled.” 9. In the subsequent decision in case of Kutch District Co-operative Milk Producers