← 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

Income Tax Officer-2(3), Lucknow vs. U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow

ITA 533/LKW/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 11Section 12A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW ‘B' BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

Income Tax Officer-2(3), Lucknow vs. U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow

ITA 532/LKW/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 11Section 12A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW ‘B' BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

Suzuki Motor Gujarat Pvt Ltd, Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs. Principle Commissoner of Income Tax, Ahmedanad-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 998/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

aside the assessment order dated 08.11.2021 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C and 144B of the Act holding the same to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and directing the assessing officer to pass a fresh assessment order after re-computing claim allowable related to general

Arthi Baliga, Chennai vs. ACIT, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1559/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1559/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arthi Baliga, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No. 15, Flat No. 3-C, Coral Woods Income Tax, Chennai-4, Apartment, Sri Ram Nagar, South Chennai. Street, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Bkjpb5416P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ravi Kannan, Advocate & Shri Varun Ranganathan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-4, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Kannan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

PCIT does not have Jurisdiction to invoke revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Act as the assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue which are the twin conditions to exercise jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. The reasons stated ... PCIT in his order that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue is because the capital gains for the sale of immovable property of the firm M/s. Baliga Lighting Company was not taxed in the hands of the assessee (in her capacity

Sanjeev Kumar Kathuria, Yamuna Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Yamunanagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 329/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

passed on 08.04.2021 in your case u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is proposed to be held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue in terms of Section 263 of I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly, in view of provisions contained in section ... accepted the FMV as on 1-4-2001 on the basis documents/valuation report therefore the order passed under section 143(3) is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to interest of revenue. 2. Your honour has taken schedule of residential land for conversion lands rate of DDA for residential purposes. There

Deepak M. Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 719/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Deepak M. Patel The Pr.Cit-I Shreekunj Vs Ahmedabad. Opp: Shaswat Bungalows Suryala Nr. Lakshya Pre School Rajpath Club Road Bodakdev Ahmedabad 380059. Pan : Abbpp 3027 G (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, Ars. : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/02/2025

Section 147Section 263Section 57

short Pr. CIT) for AY 2017-18 holding that assessment order passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B dated 31.03.2022 for the A.Y. 2017-18 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 2.1 The Id. Pr. CIT has grievously ... order of assessment u/s 147 rws 144B passed on 31.03.2022 by AO accepting the deduction of interest expenses u/s 57(iii) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2.2 That the in the facts and circumstances of the Id. Pr. CIT ought not to have invoked

Aditya Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1343/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT DR
Section 147Section 263

investigating the issue, merely directed the AO to frame the assessment order afresh. Without there being any positive finding about order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, the action of Id. PCIT is without jurisdiction and illegal and hence deserves to be deleted. 6. Ld. PCIT ... Principal CIT held that the A.O.'s failure to address this transaction in the assessment order rendered the original assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 4. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed u/s 263 of the Act by Principal

Blueview Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Odisha vs. I.T.O., Ward - 5(3), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2510/KOL/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Feb 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2510/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Blueview Agencies Pvt. Ltd. .……………………………………..….……….Appellant Lamtibahal, Brajrajnagar, Jharsuguda – 768216, Odisha. [Pan: Aadcb6386Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata….……..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Madanappa Raghuvir, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 26, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 27, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 04.10.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return For The Assessment Year 2009-10 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,890/-. The Return Of The Assessee Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. The Assessee Derives Its Income From Share Dealing & Investments. The Assessing Officer On Examination Of The Balance Sheet & Profit & Loss Account Of The Assessee Found That Certain Expenses Which Were Disallowable Has Not Been Disallowed & Certain Income Did Not Disclose In Its Return. Therefore, The Assessing Officer Issued Notice U/S 148 & Subsequently, An Order U/S 147/143(3) Of The Act Was Passed By Determining Total Income Of Rs.27,650/-. Later On, The Ld. Cit, Kolkata-Ii Found That Requisite & Proper Enquiries Were Not Concluded Regarding The Identity

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 263

I.T.A. No.2510/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Blueview Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and creditworthiness of the shareholders and also found that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as per provisions of section 263 of the Act. The ld. CIT set aside the impugned order passed

Darwin Platform Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT Mumbai -1, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 144/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram a/w Mr. ShashiFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68

passing an order of revision under section 263 of the Act when the Order of the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. PCIT erred in passing an order ... revision under section 263 of the Act without specifying in the show-cause notice how the Assessment Order is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. PCIT erred in passing an order of revision

Nimitaya Hotel & Resort Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1832/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

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

Pareshkumar Nenshibhai Thakkar, Rajkot vs. The PCIT-1, Rajkot

ITA 382/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot26 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am.- & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.381&382/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14, 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Pareshkumar Nenshibhai Thakkar Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 6, Dharmendra Road, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360001. Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abdt0333R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 133ASection 147Section 263

Rajkot erred in holding that the assessment order dated 27-03-2022 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and thus erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, in the light of show cause notice and the order ... Rajkot erred in holding that the assessment order dated 27-03-2022 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 1448 of the Act was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and thus erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, in the light of show cause notice and the order

Pareshkumar Nenshibhai Thakkar, Rajkot vs. The PCIT- Rajkot, Rajkot

ITA 381/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot26 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am.- & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.381&382/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14, 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Pareshkumar Nenshibhai Thakkar Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 6, Dharmendra Road, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360001. Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abdt0333R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 133ASection 147Section 263

Rajkot erred in holding that the assessment order dated 27-03-2022 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and thus erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, in the light of show cause notice and the order ... Rajkot erred in holding that the assessment order dated 27-03-2022 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 1448 of the Act was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and thus erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, in the light of show cause notice and the order

Kiran Fine Jewellers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result ground no 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 648/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT-Th. V.H
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Sbs Biotech Unit II, Sirmour vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 413/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Pal Garg, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 801CSection 80I

aside the order which has been passed after making due enquiries and re assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to interest of Revenue. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing of ayurvedic products at its facility situated ... PCIT vs Aartham Softronics [2019] 102 Taxmann.com 343 and order so passed by the AO u/s 147 r/w 143B was accordingly held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 6. Against the said findings and the directions of the Ld. Pr. CIT, the assessee is in appeal

Mahakali Developers and Resorts Private Limited, Scf vs. PCIT Patiala, Aaykar Bhawan

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 295/CHANDI/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Goel, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 24Section 24(1)Section 263

rental income under Section 24(A) of the Income Tax Act. To this extent, he was of the view that assessment orders are erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. 4. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that original orders were passed by the ld. AO under Section

Mahakali Developers and Resorts Private Limites, Scf, Ist Floor vs. PCIT Patiala, Aaykar Bhawan Patiala

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 294/CHANDI/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2025AY 2013-2014
For Appellant: Shri Ashok Goel, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 24Section 24(1)Section 263

rental income under Section 24(A) of the Income Tax Act. To this extent, he was of the view that assessment orders are erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. 4. The 1d. Counsel for the assessee submitted that original orders were passed by the ld. AO under Section

M/S Merino Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 923/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Pcit-2, M/S Merino Panel Products Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Chowringhee 5, Alexandra Court, 601/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata- Square, Kolkata-700069, Vs. 700020, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcm5672Q Pcit-2, M/S Merino Industries Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Chowringhee 5, Alexandra Court, 601/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata- Square, Kolkata-700069, Vs. 700020, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacc9186C Assessee By : Shri Shyam Sundar Jha, Ar Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Sundar Jha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

being 50% of the donation of such CSR expenses which according to the PCIT has rendered the assessment as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Accordingly, the ld. PCIT issued notice u/s 263 of the Act on 02.02.2024, which was not replied by the assessee. Finally ... 923/KOL/2024 M/s Merono Panel Products Ltd; A.Y. 2018-19 assessee submitted that the assessment framed by the ld. AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue as the issue was examined in the original assessment proceedings after having examined the same and therefore, proceeding

M/S Merino Panel Products Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 922/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Pcit-2, M/S Merino Panel Products Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Chowringhee 5, Alexandra Court, 601/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata- Square, Kolkata-700069, Vs. 700020, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcm5672Q Pcit-2, M/S Merino Industries Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Chowringhee 5, Alexandra Court, 601/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata- Square, Kolkata-700069, Vs. 700020, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacc9186C Assessee By : Shri Shyam Sundar Jha, Ar Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Sundar Jha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

being 50% of the donation of such CSR expenses which according to the PCIT has rendered the assessment as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Accordingly, the ld. PCIT issued notice u/s 263 of the Act on 02.02.2024, which was not replied by the assessee. Finally ... 923/KOL/2024 M/s Merono Panel Products Ltd; A.Y. 2018-19 assessee submitted that the assessment framed by the ld. AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue as the issue was examined in the original assessment proceedings after having examined the same and therefore, proceeding

Hilton Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 676/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Hilton Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward 5(3) 9/12, Lal Bazar Street, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Mercantile Building, Block-B, Chowringhee Square, Vs. 3Rd Floor, No.10, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch1011P Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Ar Revenue By : Shri S Datta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri S Datta, CIT DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 68

regarding the identity and creditworthiness of the shareholders and mechanically passed the order without application of mind which has rendered the assessment as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 05. In the set aside proceedings, the ld. AO reproduced the 263 order from page no.1 ... giving general observations without specifically dealing with the case of the assessee as to how the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The ld. AR referred to the revisionary order particularly page no.3 passed u/s 263 of the Act, wherein the ld. PCIT has discussed

Advertising Standards Council of India, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exempion), Mumbai

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

ITA 6703/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2018-19 Advertising Standards Council Cit (Exemptions), Of India, 6Th Floor, A/402, Aurus Chambers, Vs. Cumballa Hill Mtnl Te Building, S.S. Amrutwar Marg, Pedder Road, Worli, S.O., Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai Cumballa Hill, Pan : Aaaca7314C Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ajay Singh & Ms. Nidhi Goradia For Revenue : Dr. K.R. Subhash, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh &For Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 263

assessee, after having held that it is not a charitable institution. Accordingly, he took the view that the assessment order is rendered erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Accordingly, he initiated revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. After hearing the assessee, the Ld CIT(E) set aside ... incorporated in the tax computation sheet. 7. Accordingly, we are of the view that the impugned assessment order cannot be termed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue, since the AO did not grant exemption u/s 11 at all. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned revision order passed