← 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

Shuvro Chattaraj, Kolkata vs. PCIT, Burdwan

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

ITA 226/KOL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54E

That the Ld. Pr. CIT passed a perverse Order in setting aside on grounds that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3. That the Ld. Pr. CIT erred in law in interpreting the provisions of section 263 which says ‘commissioner

Keller (M) Sdn Bhd, Chennai vs. DCIT Intl Tax 1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1319/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1319/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Keller (M) Sdn Bhd, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, Centennial Square, International Taxation 1(2) No.6A, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. [Pan: Aagck 8014M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Ashik Shah, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

For Appellant: Shri. Ashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 239Section 263

without jurisdiction as the twin conditions prescribed under section 263 of the Act, ie. the order of the Ld. AO shall be 'erroneous' and 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue', are not satisfied. 2.2. The Id. CIT erred in concluding that the reassessment order passed under section ... read with section 147 for the impugned AY is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, without appreciating the material on record and submissions made by the Appellant. 2.3. The Ld. CIT erred in passing the Impugned Order, on the allegation that the Ld. AO had not examined/made

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2503/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year: 2018-19 Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Pcit-3, Mumbai Limited

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT/DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 92C

erred in that the assessment order dated 21 October 2021 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in setting aside the said order u/s 263 of the Act. 2 Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Mumbai

ITA 1533/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved &For Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

National Faceless Assessment Centre [The Id. AO] on 29th September, 2021, under Section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act is `erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue' and therefore, failure of the learned Assessing Officer in not examining several issues by way of enquiry/ verification ... dated 29 September 2021 passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Act by holding that the said order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 1.2 The learned PCIT erred in holding that the learned Assessing Officer has passed the without conducting sufficient

Hirenkumar Lavjibhai Kanani, Ahmedabad vs. PCIT, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 522/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

well as on facts as the Ld. PCIT cannot hold the Assessment Order passed dated 23.12.2021 to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The re-assessment proceedings for the year under consideration were initiated for the limited scrutiny purpose i.e. merely for the purposes of verification ... conveyed by the Ld. PCIT vide the order passed. Thus, by merely stating and not proving the conditions does not make the order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. iv. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. PCIT has erred in law as well as on facts

Parry Engineering & Electronics Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 464/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gandhi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 80I

based on these observations, held that the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, and therefore, initiated proceedings under Section 263 of the Act and set aside the order of AO and directed AO to pass a fresh assessment order ... facts while observing that the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 13/04/2021 is held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue without proper consideration and appreciation of the facts of the case. In view of the fact that the order passed

Raghu Belagodu(HUF), Bengaluru vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru - 2, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 946/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 27Section 43Section 47Section 96

acquired under RFCTLARR Act. Accordingly, the assessee is not entitled for exemption and consequently, the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, the ld. Pr.CIT held that the assessee is not eligible for exemption since the compensation received by the assessee ... computing of long term capital gains of Rs.3,45,13,545 and consequent short levy of tax of Rs.66,49,705, which is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Accordingly he set aside the assessment order with a direction to the AO to redo the assessment. Aggrieved

Mr. Kukkikatte Srikantha Rao, Mysuru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-2, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1153/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Years: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri SV Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 69C

dated 14/03/2023 but there was no compliance by the assessee. Therefore, the ld. PCIT treated the assessment order framed by the AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue on account of non-verification of the provisions of sec. 115BBE of the Act while making the addition under

Onkar Society for Engineering & Technological, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 2, Durgapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 815/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargshri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ba)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 263

since the original assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 05-04-2021 is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2. That on the facts of the case and in law, the learned PCIT erred in setting aside the original assessment order ... allowed the exemption under section 11 of the Act. Accordingly, the assessment order passed by the AO was found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and, therefore, it was proposed to review the assessment order under section 263 of the Act and notice under section

The National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhawan

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20

ITA 2481/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Ι.Τ.Α. No. 2480 /Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 2481 /Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) The National Bank Of Agriculture & Rural Development C-24, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aaact4020G Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant/Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Adv. & Shri Niraj Sheth & Shri Gunjan Kakkad, Ar Revenue/Respondent By : Shri S. Srinivasu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2024 Order Per Padmavathy S, Am: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai 3 [In Short 'The Pcit'] Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 14.03.2024 For

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

assessee allowed the deduction. The assessee relied on various judicial pronouncements with regard to the order of the AO not being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue where the AO has taken a plausible view after considering the submissions of the assessee. The assessee further submitted that ... that even on merits the order of the AO allowing the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 36(1)(viia) is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The PCIT after considering the submissions of the assessee held that “10. The submissions of the assesse

The National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20

ITA 2480/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

assessee allowed the deduction. The assessee relied on various judicial pronouncements with regard to the order of the AO not being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue where the AO has taken a plausible view after considering the submissions of the assessee. The assessee further submitted that ... that even on merits the order of the AO allowing the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 36(1)(viia) is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 4. The PCIT after considering the submissions of the assessee held that “10. The submissions of the assesse

Sir Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai Suburban vs. Additional /Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

ITA 4156/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 10(34)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 2(15)

Assessing Officer’s not looking into this aspect of the matter that rendered the subject assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 32. There is no dispute with the proposition that in terms of the provisions of Section 11(1)(d)(iii) the assessee trust could ... under section 13(3) has substantial holdings in Tata Sons Ltd. It cannot, therefore, be open to the Commissioner to hold the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue that this aspect of the matter, regarding indirect or associated holding as emerging out of the scheme

Sir Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai Suburban vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

ITA 4154/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 10(34)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 2(15)

Assessing Officer’s not looking into this aspect of the matter that rendered the subject assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 32. There is no dispute with the proposition that in terms of the provisions of Section 11(1)(d)(iii) the assessee trust could ... under section 13(3) has substantial holdings in Tata Sons Ltd. It cannot, therefore, be open to the Commissioner to hold the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue that this aspect of the matter, regarding indirect or associated holding as emerging out of the scheme

Posun Credit Co. Op. Society Ltd., Anand vs. The Pr. CIT, Vadodara-1, Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 378/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

order u/s.263 passed on 27.03.2023 by Pr. CIT-1, Vadodara holding that the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) on 22.01.2021 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue to the extent of issue relating to deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) in respect of interest income from ... order passed by u/s.263 on 27.03.2023 by Pr.CIT-1 Vadodara holding the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3) on 22.01.2021 as erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue is illegal and unlawful. The Id. Pr. CIT has erred in law and or on facts in invoking the powers of revision

Shri Bhanvarlal Champalal Kanuga, Unjha vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmeabad

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

ITA 95/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.95/Ahd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Bhanvarlal Champalal The Principal Cit बनाम/ Kanuga Range-3 C/O. Ketan H. Shah, Advocate Pratyakash Kar Bhavan V/S. 512, Times Square – I Ahmedabad Opp. Ram Baug Bungalows Nr. Ravija Plaza Thaltej-Shilaj Road Ahmedabad – 380 059. (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acmpk 0172 H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ketan H. Shah, Ar & Shri Aman Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pushpendra Singh Chaudhary, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07/08/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 29/03/2022 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Pcit(A)” In Short] In Exercise Of The Shri Bhanvarlal Champalal Kanuga Vs. Pr.Cit-3 Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ketan H. Shah, AR &For Respondent: Shri Pushpendra Singh
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

erred in not appreciating the facts that the order passed earlier u/s 143(3) dated 16-11-2019 is neither "erroneous" nor "prejudicial to the interest of the revenue" and therefore, the present proceeding initiated by way of SCN dated 24-02-2022 as well as the order passed ... objection, which the AO had not accepted, the PCIT, however, carried out an independent inquiry and found that the AO’s order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Further, we note that the assessee had furnished documents but did not provide explanations to the issues involved

M/S.Tamilnadu State Marketing Corpn. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1179/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1179/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/S. Tamilnadu State Marketing Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Corporation Limited, Cmda Tower Ii, Income Tax, Iv Floor, Gandhi Irwin Bridge Road, Corporate Circle 3(1), Egmore, Chennai 600 008. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaact2964P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate & Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,Chennai-3, Chennai Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Ld. Pcit Initiated Proceedings Under Section 263 Of The Act On An Examination Of Books Of Account, Wherein, It Was Noted That The Assessee Had Debited A Sum Of ₹.14930,54,85,164/- As Vat Expenses

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 263Section 37Section 40

PCIT in setting aside the assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act dated 13.04.2021 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, is not justified. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee in seeking to quash the order passed

Reliance Power Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-6, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2367/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth & Shri Gunjan Kakkad, A/RFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT, D/R
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

further erred in holding that the assessment order dated 19/04/2021 framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, is not only erroneous but prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 3. Representatives of both the sides were heard at length, case records carefully perused and the relevant documentary evidence ... Rs.26,27,01,728/-. 3. In view of the above, it is seen that the order passed u/s 143 r.w.s.144B dated 19.04.2021. is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue and is required to be set-aside on the above issue by invoking the provisions of section

Ved Prakash & Sons Liumbers Pvt Ltd, Karnal vs. Pr. CIT, Karnal

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4079/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganeh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 40A(2)(b)

that even after thorough examination, no specific findings had been given on the issue as to how the order of Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue by the assessment order. Ved Prakash & Sons Liumbers Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT 13. Learned Authorised Representative ... PCIT must undertakes some minimal enquiry and give reasons for coming to the conclusion that assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, as per by the following judicial pronouncements- (a) PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3, NEW DELHI VERSUS DELHI AIRPORT METRO EXPRESS

Thayappa Balakrishna, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1027/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Thayappa Balakrishna, No. 987, 11Th Main, The Principal 1St Block, Commissioner Of 3Rd Stage, Income-Tax, Basaveshwaranagar, Bengaluru – 1. Vs. Bangalore – 560 079. Pan: Abdpb4893N Appellant Respondent : Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

setting aside assessment order passed u/ s 147 rws 144B of the Act by holding that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax erred in invoking clause ... Bank also stands unexplained and unverified. As the issue has not been examined and verified by the AO, the assessment order passed is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Page 6 of 24 revenue in view of clause(a) to Explanation 2 of Section

Featherlite Office Systems Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1007/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 153Section 153ASection 263

computing book profit under section 1151B has not been considered and hence the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. 2.3. Without prejudice, the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bangalore erred in concluding that the Provision for doubtful debts ... wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed the view that, in case the officer does not agree with the view, cannot be treated as erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue unless the view taken by the income tax officer is unsustainable in law. The assessee placed reliance