← 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, Ward-1, Nanded vs. Latur District Central Co Op Bank Ltd, Latur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1222/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(viia)

which is well much short of the correct qualifying amount at more than Rs.21 Crore. That being the position, the assessment order albeit erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue at the first part of calculation of qualifying amount at_7.5% on total income, but ceases

M/S N.A.M. Expressway Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 580/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.580/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) N.A.M.Expressway Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle-5(1) Delhi Hyderabad [Pan : Aadcn3131D] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms Ananya Kapoor & Shri Tarun Chanana, Ar (Through Virtual Mode) रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Shiva Sewak, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 30/10/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 28/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2019 Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Ld.Pcit], Hyderabad-4 Pertaining To A.Y.2018-19 On The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Shri Salil KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Sewak, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 43B

pages 3 to 8 of the Ld.PCIT order. According to the assessee, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, because, both the issues discussed by the Ld.PCIT in the show cause notice have already been examined ... relevant facts has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee. Therefore, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that the amortisation expenses of Rs.85

Dalmia Dsp Limited (Formerly Known As Kalyanpur Cements Limited), Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 54/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.54/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dalmia Dsp Ltd………………..………........………………....Appellant 2&3, Lic Building, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Sarani, (Clive Row), Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aabck1273H] Vs. Dcit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata…….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Navin Verma, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 11, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 28, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.11.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income On 25.09.2010 By Declaring A Total Loss Of Rs.63,97,05,090/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Subseqeuntly, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued & Assessment Order Was Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 24.01.2013 Determining A Total Loss Of Rs.60,17,78,201/-. Later On, The Case Was Reviewed U/S 263 Of The Act Considering The Assessment Order Dated 24.01.2013 As It Was Found Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue As Per Order Dated 30.03.2015 U/S 263 Of The Act Setting Aside The File To The Assessing

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 43B

Later on, the case was reviewed u/s 263 of the Act considering the assessment order dated 24.01.2013 as it was found erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as per order dated 30.03.2015 u/s 263 of the Act setting aside the file to the Assessing I.T.A. No.54/Kol/2019 Assessment Year

Shummy Poulose Puthanangady, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 27, Mumbai, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1448/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jigar MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Dhule – CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263

without appreciating that the order passed by National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) u/s.147 r.w.s.144B of the Act dated 28.03.2022 was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. (b) The Ld. PCIT erred in law and facts by treating the order u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated ... erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue without appreciating the fact that there was no failure on the part of Ld. Assessing Officer for properly examining the issue and the order was passed after making requisite enquiries and verification on all issues. (c) The Ld. PCIT erred

Shree Sarvodaya Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Vadodara vs. NFAC, Delhi Present Jurisdiction the Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 1349/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Viranch Modi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

cooperative society, from investment made with a cooperative bank under section 80P(2)(d) which was erroneous and prejudicial to Interest of revenue Tribunal reversed Principal Commissioner's order holding that cooperative bank was a cooperative society registered under Gujarat State Cooperative Societies Act and, therefore, interest earned by assessee ... 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. [Para 33] i. In view of the foregoing reasons the question is answered

Shree Sarvodaya Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Vadodara vs. NFAC, Delhi Present Jurisdiction the Dy. CIT, Cicle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 1348/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Viranch Modi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

cooperative society, from investment made with a cooperative bank under section 80P(2)(d) which was erroneous and prejudicial to Interest of revenue Tribunal reversed Principal Commissioner's order holding that cooperative bank was a cooperative society registered under Gujarat State Cooperative Societies Act and, therefore, interest earned by assessee ... 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. [Para 33] i. In view of the foregoing reasons the question is answered

Mohanedyusufkhan Gulabkhan Farmwala, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 150/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

assessment order passed by the ITO Ward-1(3)(3), Ahmedabad u/s 143(3) rws 147 of the Act dated 26/12/2019 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2. The ld. Pr. CIT erred in holding that the assessing officer has failed to make necessary and bring ... relevant details in response thereof was filed. 3. The ld. Pr. CIT failed to appreciate that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and thus order under section Mohmedyusufkhan Gulabkhan Farmwala vs. PCIT Asst.Year –2012-13 - 2– 263 is bad in law, illegal

Cambridge Technology Enterprises Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 536/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.536/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Cambridge Technology Vs. Dcit Enterprises Limited Circle-1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaacu3358G] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Shiva Sewak, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/10/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2019 Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Ld.Pcit], Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2012-13. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company, Engaged In The Business Of Rendering Software Services, Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y.2012-13 On 26.09.2012, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.4,05,55,380/- Under Normal Provisions Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) & Rs.1,47,09173/-

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Sewak, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

assessment, this point was not considered. Omission to disallow capital loss resulted in short computation of income, which rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Ld.PCIT, further noted that from the Profit & Loss account, the assessee company has shown prior period income ... show cause notice, the assessee vide letter dated 14.02.2019 submitted that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, on the issue of deduction claimed towards impairment loss on absolute plant and machinery, reduction of prior period income, which

Keystone Realtors Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT (Central) -1, Mumbai

ITA 2903/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrikeystone Realtors Ltd. V/S. Pcit, (Central), Mumbai-1 702 Natraj, Mv Road बनाम Income Tax Office, Junction, W E Highway, Room No. 1001, 10Th Floor, Andheri (E), Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Mumbai-400069 Cgo Annex, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaack2499Q Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Waseem KhanFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 143(3)Section 263

PCIT has erred in passing the order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act,1961 without jurisdiction as the order passed was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. It is therefore submitted that the order passed u/s 263 should be quashed as the same is illegal, void

Ankur Goyal, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2524/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 263

learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in holding the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in setting aside the AO order on account of FD interest ... taxable income disclosed in the ITR. Therefore, he contended that the Ld. PCIT’s finding that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue on the issue of taxability of interest income of Rs.16,18,16,439/- on FDRs was not justified. 3 Micromax Informatics

M/S Milroc Good Earth Developers, Panaji vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji

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

ITA 96/PAN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji23 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos. 96/Pan/2023 (A.Y. 2018-19) Milroc Good Earth Developers, Vs Pr.Cit, 501,Milroc Lar Menezes, Aaykar Bhawan, . Swami Vivekanand Road, Edc Complex, Panaji, North Goa-403001, Patto Plaza, Goa. Panaji-403001, Goa. . Pan/Gir No. Aayfm4095P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 263

opinion that the A.O has not undertaken the verification/examination of the facts and found the order passed by the A.O is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and set aside the assessment order passed on 24.02.2021. Aggrieved by the revision order, the assessee has filed an appeal ... Pr.CIT has erred in set aside the order u/sec 143(3) of the Act, which does not satisfy the twin conditions of erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Ld.AR submitted that the explanation 2 to sec 263 of the Act ought to be considered only when

Adani Power Ltd. (Previously Known As Adani Power Maharashtra Limited Now Amalgamated With Adani Power Ltd.), Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal challenging the validity of 263 order passed in the name of a non-existent entity is hereby allowed

ITA 453/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah on behalf of Shri ManishFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT DR
Section 263Section 37(1)

duly applied his mind and not made disallowance of CSR expenditure amounting to Rs.99,10,385/-. Thus, the assessment order was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2.2 The Ld. CIT has failed to appreciate that the appellant has submitted all relevant details during assessment proceeding which ... applied his mind and not made disallowance of Foreign Exchange Fluctuation loss of Rs.9,52,38,730/-. Thus, the assessment order was not erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the Appellant’s case, the Ld. PCIT is not justified

Pavan Prabhudyal Bhadada, Shahibaug, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Ahmedabad, Income Tax Office, Vejalpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 620/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Prakash D Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 263

held that the Assessing Officer’s failure to make the necessary additions resulted in a loss of revenue, rendering the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 4. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by Principal CIT, setting aside the assessment ... order as being erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the present appeal concerns an order passed under section 263 of the Act, which was invoked in relation to a reassessment Pavan Prabhudyal Bhadada vs. ITO Asst.Year

Lycos Internet Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1769/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, СА
Section 14ASection 249(4)(a)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

examining/verifying the above issue. Therefore, the order passed by the Assessing Officer without making inquiries or verification which should have been made is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Accordingly, a show-cause notice u/s 263 of the Act, dated 20/12/2017 was issued by the learned

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad vs. Lycos Internet Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1550/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1550/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Lycos Internet Ltd Income Tax, Circle 16 (1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaacl5827B (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1769/Hyd/2018 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Lycos Internet Ltd Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Circle 16 (1) Pan:Aaacl5827B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/01/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Are Two Appeals, One By The Department Against The Order Dated 23/06/2017 Of The Learned Cit (A) & Another By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 26/02/2018 Passed

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT(DR)
Section 14ASection 263

examining/verifying the above issue. Therefore, the order passed by the Assessing Officer without making inquiries or verification which should have been made is erroneous and prejudicial to the Page 12 of 32 ITA Nos 1550 and 1769 LYCOS Internet Ltd interest of the Revenue. Accordingly, a show-cause notice ... while exercising jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act and in the absence of the finding that the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, exercise of jurisdiction under the said section is not sustainable. In most cases of alleged "inadequate investigation", it will be difficult

Nayara Energy Limited (Formerly Known As Essar Oil Limited), Mumbai vs. PCIT, Central-1, Mumbai

ITA 2556/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

PCIT took the view that the AO has failed to examine the same and hence the impugned assessment order is rendered erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Accordingly, he initiated the revision proceedings u/s.263 of the Act. 3. Before the Ld.PCIT, the assessee submitted that ... adjustments made by the assessee and he has accepted the same. Accordingly, it was contended that the assessment order cannot be termed as ‘erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue'. However, the Ld.PCIT did not agree with the above said contentions of the assessee. He held that

Me N Moms Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Mumbai

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

ITA 1606/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2017-18 Me N Moms Private Limited, Pr. Commissioner Of 2 Amar Chs, 8Th Road, Income Tax-4, Khar (W), Vs. 6Th Floor, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Pan : Aaecm6253C M.K.Road, Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Heliwal, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

original assessment proceedings. 4. The Ld.PCIT examined the assessment records and took the view that the reassessment order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Accordingly, he initiated revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. However, the assessee did not respond ... said issues. The non-application of mind by the AO and non-examination of above said issues would make the impugned reassessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. 7. We heard the parties and perused the record. First of all, we notice that the assessee

A T and S India Private Limited, Nanjangud, Mysore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1220/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Pcit, Kolkata-2 A T & S India Private Limited Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 12A, Industrial Area Nanjangud Chowringhee Square, Vs. H.O, Mysore-571301, Karnataka Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca2930J Assessee By : Shri Anup Sinha, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263

show cause notice to the assessee as to why the assessment framed by the ld. AO should not be revised for being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue for the reasons stated hereinabove. The assessee replied to the said show cause notice. The PCIT after taking into ... without jurisdiction as the assessment was validly framed u/s 143(3) read with section 144C of the Act dated 15.11.2021 which was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The ld. AR pointed out that the revisionary jurisdiction was invoked for two reasons as stated

Rochem Separation Systems India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax PCIT, Mumbai - 6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2846/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Rochem Separation Systems India Principal Commissioner Of Income Private Limited Tax, Mumbai-400 006 101 Hdil Tower, Anant Kanekar Marg, Vs. Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav BansalFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43B

called for and examined the assessment records of the assessee. While doing so, he was of the view that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue due to the following reasons. Ld. PCIT observed that as per 3 Rochem Separations Systems India Private Limited ... such view, ld. PCIT issued a show cause notice to the assessee to explain why the assessment order should not be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and revised. In response to the show cause notice, the assessee made a detailed submission, pointing out that

Vinod Kumar Singhal, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1004/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar S. V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. K. Mishra, PR.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 263

Rs.8,159/- has not been examined and disallowed. Therefore, he observed that reassessment order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue in terms of Page 4 of 14 section 263 of the act and not made proper verification / enquiry while making the assessments ... reasons recorded. Therefore, the reassessment passed by the AO is suffering from infirmity and it is complete lack of enquiry which is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 11. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the AO after issue of Show cause notice on 26.03.2022 only