“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

Magan Mercantile Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT-4, Mumbai

ITA 1377/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj ManglaFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 271ASection 68

penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act hence, the assessment order passed by the AO on dated 23.04.2021 u/s 143(3), was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3. The Ld. Pr. CIT, Mumbai erred in law as well as on the facts of the case ... provisions of Sec. 115BBE of the Act hence, the assessment order passed by the AO on dated 23.04.2021 u/s 143(3), was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 4. That the assessee company seeks leave to add, alter, modify or delete any ground of appeal during the course

M/S Cheema Boilers Ltd., Mohali vs. Pr. CIT-2, Mohali

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 748/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 748/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Monga,CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 36Section 40

Failure to make proper enquiries to arrive at the correct and complete facts and to apply the correct law makes the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as held by the Hon'ble Courts in the following cases: i) 4. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rampyari ... held that: "where Assessing Officer has accepted a particular contention/issue without any enquiry or evidence whatsoever, the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue". 7. The Assessee filed its reply as under:- “The assessee company, as per the requirements of Accounting Standard

Smt. Manishadevi Vinodkumar Agarwal, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 23/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263

facts and making any independent enquiries as were required in the facts and circumstances of the case accepted the returned income , which is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, as the AO only made superficial enquiries by calling paper trail with respect to sale and purchase of shares ... accepted the returned income . Thus , the assessee contended that there is no question of the assessment order is to be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. However, in the show cause notice for revising the assessment Ld. PCIT relies on the report of Director of Investigation

Jabeen Tradelink Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT-4, Mumbai

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

ITA 1197/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj ManglaFor Respondent: Shri VivekPerampurna CIT-DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69B

assessment order passed by Ld.AO u/s 143(3) of the Act to be passed without necessary enquiries and verification and thus, to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3. That the Ld.PCIT did not appreciate that the books of account were duly produced before ... dealt with all the activities of the company. The ld.PCIT, by invoking provisions of section 263 treated the impugned assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as the entire investment was not brought under the tax net under section

Authorgen Technologies Private Limited, Punjab vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 541/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 541/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Authrogen Technologies Vs. The Pcit, बनाम Chandigarh-1, Private Limited, Chandigarh C-203, 8Th Floor, World Tech Power, Industrial Area, Phase Viii, Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadca0494Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent (Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri K M Gupta, Advocate & Shri Jaskaran Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri K M Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 263(2)Section 68

Income tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is bad in law, and without jurisdiction, as the order sought to be revised is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Passing of order under section 263 of the Act beyond the period of limitation 2. On the facts ... under consideration. Incorrect assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act without satisfying the twin conditions of the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 3. That the learned PCIT has erred in law and on facts in invoking the revisionary jurisdiction under section

Harde vs. Ingh P. Chudasama Prop. Bhavani Transport, Ahmedabadvs.the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 200/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 200/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2017-2018 Shri Hardevsingh P Chudasama, The Principal Prop. Bhavani Transport, बनामVs Commissioner Of . Opp. Jain Temple, Income Tax-3, Dholera, Ahmedabad. Dhandhuka, Ahmedabad-382455. Pan: Adgpc0026R

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, ARFor Respondent: Shri H Phani Raju, CIT. DR

Section 115BSection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 234ASection 263Section 68Section 69A

facts of the case in exercising the powers u/s.263 of the Act. Under the facts the original order was neither erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue and thus none of the conditions as envisaged under Section 263 are fulfilled. 2. The Learned PCIT erred in holding that ... clearly setting out that the Ld.PCIT has expressed his second view but not pointed out any defect in the assessment order which is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Hence, the order passed by the Ld.PCIT u/s.263 of the Act is not justifiable. Asst. Year

Gauttam Nipinbhai Nagarsheth, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 154/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.154/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Gautam Nipinbhai The Pr.Cit-3, बनाम/ Nagarsheth Ahmedabad V/S. D-37, Aaryaman Bungalows Nr.Railway Crossing Opp. Anand Niketan School Thaltej Shilaj, Thaltej Ahmedabad – 380 059 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aakpn 7077 J (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Rajvaidya, Ca Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11-03-2022 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Ahmedabad (Hereinafter Referred To As “Pcit”) Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of The Pcit, Wherein The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Has Been Set Aside On The Gautam Nipinbhai Nagarsheth Vs. The Pr.Cit-3 Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rajvaidya, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57Section 68

been set aside on the Gautam Nipinbhai Nagarsheth vs. The Pr.CIT-3 Asst. Year : 2017-18 grounds that the order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Facts of the case: 2. The assessee is an individual and filed his return of income ... explanation was provided. The PCIT also concluded that the AO failed to make proper inquiries or verifications during the assessment, resulting in an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Therefore, PCIT issued notice and passed his order u/s.263 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order

Mr. Udaising U. Jadhav, Pune vs. Pr. CIT-3, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands dismissed

ITA 760/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.760/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Udaising U. Jadhav, Vs. Pr.Cit-3, Pune N-3, Nakshatrum, Premlok Park, Chinchwad, Dist. Pune 411 033 Maharashtra Pan : Aimpj1766G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 143(3)Section 263

while computing the tax liability of the appellant. Thus, the ld. PCIT formed opinion that the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Accordingly a show cause notice u/s.263 was issued to the appellant on 07.12.2023 for which no compliance ... PCIT u/s.263. Further, the ld. AR had failed to demonstrate as to how the assessment order by the AO is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In the light of this discussion, we hold that the ld. PCIT had rightly exercised jurisdiction u/s.263

Sri Varalaxmi Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 486/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G, Accountnat Member & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.486/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2015-16) M/S. Sri Varalaxmi Projects Private Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-3(1), Hyderabad. Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaics9161K (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Venkateswarlu, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/09/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 23/09/2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Venkateswarlu, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 263

vide notice dated 2.2.2024 asked the assessee as to why the order of Assessing Officer could not be declared as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In response to the notice u/s.263 of the Act, the learned counsel for the assessee vide its reply dated 27.02.2024 (page ... However, the PCIT-I could not find any force in the submissions of the assessee and declared the order of Assessing Officer as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue vide the impugned order. 3. Aggrieved with the order of the PCIT-I, the assessee has come

Trimurti Grihanirman Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Kol-2, Kolkata

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

ITA 525/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 263

alleged shortfall in “work-in-progress” (in short ‘WIP’) inventory. On this account he has held the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Aggrieved with this order, the appellant is in appeal before us. I.T.A. No.: 525/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Trimurti Grihanirman ... details and specifically the details regarding the valuation of closing inventory WIP, the original order so passed cannot be said to be either erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, and thus the assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld. PCIT, Kol-2, is arbitrary, unjustified, unwarranted and illegal

Export Import Bank of India, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2918/MUM/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2019-20 Export Import Bank Of India Pcit, Mumbai-3, Mumbai World Trade Centre Complex, Vs Centre One Building, Floor 21, Colaba S.O., Mumbai-400005. Pan: Aaace 2769 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT, DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 155(18)Section 263Section 90

assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act when the assessment order dated 29.09.2021 passed by the Ld. AO u/s. 143(3) is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The action of the Ld. PCIT İs illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Accordingly ... assessment order dated 29.09.2021 passed by the Ld. AO u/s. 143(3) is 2 Export Import Bank of India A.Y. 2019-20 neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, in view of the following reasonings: (i) The AO had made proper inquiries and applied his mind

Dipikaben Kaniyalal Prajapati, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad -3, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 513/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year: 2015-16 Principal Commissioner Of Dipikaben Kaniyalal Prajapati, Income-Tax, Prop. Of Shivam Roadways, बनाम/ Ahmedabad-3, 17, Bhuyangdev Society, Sola Ahmedabad Road, Ghatlodia, Ahmedabad, Vs. Gujarat -380061 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Shailesh Shah, Ca Revenue By Shri H. Phani Raju, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024 आदेश/ O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra Kamble:

Section 147Section 151Section 153CSection 263

jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and, thereby, holding that the assessment has framed by the assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the Interest of the revenue and further erred in setting aside the order dated 26/03/2022 as passed by the Assessing Officer. Where assessment

Renu Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 5, Pune

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 132/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.132/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Renu Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Circle-5, Pune. S.No.2/6, Near Baner Telephone Exchange, Baner, Pune- 411045. Pan : Aaacr8741G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.12.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1] The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Weighted Deduction Amounting To Rs.9,25,79,494/- U/S 35(2Ab) Of The Act. 2] The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Assessee Company Was Not Entitled To Claim Weighted Deduction U/S 35(2Ab) Since Form No. 3Cla Was Filed By The Assessee Beyond The Due Date Specified U/S 139(1) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 35Section 37(1)

section 35(2AB) of the Act. The ITAT in our opinion is correct in holding that the order of the A.O. is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 7. In view of above, we do not find any error of fact and law in the order

Sushila Bhaurao Deshmukh, Amravati vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 76/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: ShriK.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Salunke

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 54BSection 54E

after proper enquiries and taking possible view on facts and evidence on record. Thus order passed cannot be termed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue for invoking provisions of sec. 263 of I.T. Act 1961. 5) Any other ground shall be prayed at the time of hearing ... examined the above issues properly relating to deduction / exemption claimed by the assessee. Therefore, the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue in view of Explanation 2 to Section 263 of the I.T. Act. Reliance is placed on the following decisions

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Trichy vs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited, Trichy

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

ITA 1260/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri Soumen Adak, CA

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153(4)Section 92C

mandatory provisions of section 92CA and CBDT Instruction No.3 of 2016. Such an assessment order definitely falls within the meaning of erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue as envisaged u/s. 263 of the Act. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has pointed that in ITBA portal the last

Michelle Y. Poonawalla, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle-7, Pune

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 2013-14

ITA 665/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 22Section 23Section 24Section 263Section 57

Pune. The Ld. Pr. CIT vide his order dated 28.03.2018 considered the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and therefore directed the Ld. AO to revise the assessment order for AY 2013-14 dated 31.12.2015 by disallowing claim of Rs.1,22,59,620/-. Statutory notice ... Therefore, in our opinion, the PCIT correctly exercised its jurisdiction in holding the assessment order dated 31-12-2015 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order of PCIT and it is justified and the grounds raised

Michelle Y. Poonawalla, Pune vs. DCIT-Cir-7, Pune

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 2013-14

ITA 664/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 22Section 23Section 24Section 263Section 57

Mr.Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1514/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1514/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Mr. Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen Pcit (Central) बनाम/ 42, Maraikayar Street, Ii Floor, Chennai-1. Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Vs. Chennai-600 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aawpi-0038-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Lavanya (Ca) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Lavanya (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 253(1)Section 263Section 69A

invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act, When the impugned Assessment made u/s 153C r.w.s 144 of the Act is not 'erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue' and thereby erred In setting aside the Order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 153C r.w.s ... that in a case where two views are possible and Assessing Officer preferred one view against another view, Order could not be said erroneous or prejudicial to interest of revenue. 4. For that the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central)- 1, Chennai has erred in holding that the Assessing

Mr.Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1513/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1508/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1509/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1510/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1511/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1512/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1513/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Mr. Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen Pcit (Central) बनाम/ 42, Maraikayar Street, Ii Floor, Chennai-1. Near Annai Ayesha Mahal, Vs. Chennai-600 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aawpi-0038-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Lavanya (Ca) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-08-2024

For Appellant: Ms. Lavanya (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. DR

Section 153CSection 263

Mr.Abdul Munaf Irfanudeen, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1512/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Ms. Lavanya (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. DR

Section 153CSection 263