“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

Kiran Ashok Desai, Mumbai vs. The PCIT Mumbai-19, Mumbai

In the result, Ground raised by the assessee is allowed and order passed by the Ld

ITA 1794/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalkiran Ashok Desai, D-3, Triveni Building, 66 Walkeshwar Road, Maharashtra 400 066 Pan: Aabpd6275H ..... Appellant Vs. Pcit R. No. 617, 6Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Parel, Mumbai- 400 012 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Gunjan Kakkad, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50CSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

PCIT entertains a different opinion in the matter; 1.2.4 order passed by the Ld. AO ought not have been held as 'erroneous' and 'prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as the twin conditions stated under section 263 of the Act are not fulfilled; and 1.2.5 the subject matter ... revisionary proceedings did not form part of limited scrutiny proceedings and the assessment order could not have been held to be 'erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue when the Ld. AO could not have travelled beyond the issues forming subject matter of the 'limited scrutiny. 1.3 The Appellant

E M C Projects Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1063/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Aug 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1063/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Emc Projects Pvt. Limited,………………..………Appellant 2, Robinson Street, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700017 [Pan:Aaace7218F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,………Respondent Circle-7(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Jitendra Kantilal Surti, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 20, 2024 O R D E R

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

position of law and facts and circumstances of the instant case, the assessment order passed by the AO is found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue in accordance with the Explanation 2 below section 263(1) of the Act. As a result, the assessment order passed

Raghuleela Estates Private Limited, Bandra, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2595/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A/RFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT, D/R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 24BSection 263

further erred in holding that the assessment order dated 16/04/2021 framed u/s 143(3) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 3. The cause for assumption of jurisdiction is the claim of deduction of pre-construction interest ... every issue thoroughly with supporting evidences. Therefore, it would be unjust to say that, the PCIT says that the impugned assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 8.1. Further, a close look at the order of PCIT framed u/s 263 of the Act would show

Raghuleela Estates Private Limited, Bandra, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2594/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A/RFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT, D/R

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

further erred in holding that the assessment order dated 31/03/2022 framed u/s 143(3) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, the assessment order was framed in the name of Wadhwa & Associates Realtors ... calls for and examines the record of any proceeding under the Act and considers that any order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The twin conditions of-(i) the CIT calling for and examining the record; succeeded by (ii) his considering

M/S Mx System International Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. PCIT-4, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2560/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT, D/R

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

further erred in holding that the assessment order dated 23/04/2021 framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. I.T.A. No. 2560/Mum/2024 2 3. Representatives of both the sides were heard at length. Case records carefully perused. 4. Briefly stated ... carried forward losses. 7. Considering the facts of the case in totality we are of the opinion that the assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue for the year under consideration. Therefore, we set aside the order of the PCIT dated 26/03/2024 and restore

Aarna Infrazone Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. Pr, CIT, Noida

In the result, the impugned order is upheld and appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1208/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: S/Shri S Krishnan, and V. Rajkumar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Chaudhary, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 263

Assessing Officer failed to make inquiries or verifications which should have been made. This makes the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The twin conditions sine qua non for invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act, i.e. the order passed by AO is erroneous

Vidarbha Industries Power Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, 6, Mumbai

ITA 2140/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd., Reliance Centre, Ground Floor, 19 Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 092 Pan: Aadcr1892D ..... Appellant Vs. Pcit-6, R. No. 501, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Seth, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, Ld. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Officer, National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi ("the Assessing Officer") u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act ("the Act") dated 06/04/2021, is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue as per Explanation 2(a) to Sec. 263 of the Act and setting aside of the Assessment Order

Harisha, Mysore vs. PCIT (Central), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 816/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kiran D., D.R

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

since the ld. AO passed the assessment without getting the report from the DVO. The ld. PCIT concluded that since the same is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, he proposed to invoke the powers vested with him u/s 263 of the Act. The assessee filed his detailed ... time of argument, the ld. A.R. submitted that the assessment passed by the ld. AO u/s 143(3) of the Act is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue since at the time of passing the assessment order, he has not received the DVO report. In fact, till

Kaivan Jitendrkumar Shah HUF, Ellisbridge Ahmedabad vs. PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 644/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year : 2013-14 Kaivan Jitendrakumar Shah Huf, The Pr. Commissioner Of 27A, Anmol, Maharashtra Society, Vs Income Tax, Nr. Lions Hall, Mithakali, Ahmedabad-1, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380009 Ahmedabad Pan : Aahhk 9488 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sulabh Padshah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Padshah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

spite of this specific reason for reopening no addition was made and, therefore, the order of the Assessing Officer was treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Accordingly, the ld. PCIT had passed the impugned order directing the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment de novo ... ground that order passed by the A.O. u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act for A.Y. 2013-14 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. It is submitted that the order passed by the learned A.O. is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. On facts

Navin Kalidas Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 109/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 109/Ahd/2021 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Navin Kalidas Patel The Pr.Cit-3 802, Block –A, Status Ahmedabad Vs. Appartment, Opp. T. V. Tower, Drive-In-Road, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380054 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Achpp0215B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 14/08/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-3, (In Short ‘The Pr. Cit’) Dated 29.03.2021 In Exercise Of His Revisionary Power Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Return Of Income For A.Y. 2015-16 Was Filed By The Assessee On 25.01.2016 Showing Total Income Of Rs.2,03,730/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

investment in the property was not properly examined by the AO. The Ld. PCIT, therefore, held that the order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, a notice under Section 263 of the Act was issued by the Pr. CIT on 16.03.2022 and, thereafter ... assessment proceeding, it was not correct on the part of the Ld. Pr. CIT to hold that the order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. He further submitted that a detailed reply dated 24th March, 2021 was also filed before

Visakhapatnam Industrial Water Supply Company Ltd, Visakhapatnam vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 229/VIZ/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.137, 138 & 139/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) Visakhapatnam Industrial Water V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Circle – 4(1) Supply Company Limited Income Tax Office C/O. Gvmc, Room No. 204 Pratyakshakar Bhavan Teneti Bhavan, Asilmetta Junction Mvp Double Road Visakhapatnam – 530002 Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabcv2240H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 229/Viz/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Visakhapatnam Industrial Water V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Circle – 5(1) Supply Company Limited Income Tax Office C/O. Gvmc, Room No. 204 Pratyakshakar Bhavan Teneti Bhavan, Asilmetta Junction Mvp Double Road Visakhapatnam – 530002 Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aabcv2240H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43B

loss as in the earlier assessment order. Once again Ld. CIT – 2, Visakhapatnam on 28.03.2014 holding the order of the Assessing Officer as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue passed an order under section 263 of the Act on the issue of allowance of interest payable

Visakhapatnam Industrial Water Supply Company Ltd, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 139/VIZ/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43B

Visakhapatnam Industrial Water Supply Company Ltd, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 138/VIZ/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Aug 2024AY 2006-07

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43B

Visakhapatnam Industrial Water Supply Company Ltd, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 137/VIZ/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Aug 2024AY 2005-06

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43B

M/S Bewell Labs Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 328/KOL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 119Section 143(3)Section 263

No.328/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/s Bewell Labs Pvt. Ltd. without stating in the said order as to how the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 30.09.2016 declaring total loss ... claim of expenses by the assessee in the profit and loss has rendered the order passed by the AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue but in the present case the PCIT has simply stated prior period expenses are not allowable and revised the assessment which

Anotra Realators Private Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT (Central)- 1, Chennai

ITA 1451/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69A

deleted by the appellate authorities. Thus, the assessment order in which penalty has been initiated under incorrect provisions of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The facts that the AO has failed to initiate penalty under the correct provisions of the Act which amounts ... above, I am satisfied that the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.153C of the Act dated 28.03.2022 for assessment year 2016-17 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, as penalty has not been initiated u/s 271(1 ) (c)of the Act. Therefore, I consider it appropriate

Ashok Kumar Jain, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1394/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

revising the assessment framed by the AO u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 24.03.2022 by upholding the assessment as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue for verification of transactions of NSEL commodities and provision of bad debt claimed by the assessee. For this, assessee has raised various ... Section 263 of the Act delineates certain conditions and circumstances when the order passed by the AO can be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. 20. Clause (a) of Explanation 2 to Section 263 of the Act further stipulates that if an order is passed without making

Rajapalayam Mills Ltd., Virudhunagar vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle, Madurai

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

ITA 1251/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1251/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Rajapalayam Mills Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Post Box No. 1, Rajapalayam Mills Income Tax, Premises, P.A.C. Ramasamy Raja Corporate Circle, Salai, Rajapalayam, Madurai. Virudhunagar 626 117. [Pan: Aaacr8897F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Muralidhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madurai Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised 9 Grounds Amongst Which The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration Is Whether The Ld. Pcit Is Justified In Directing The Assessing Officer For Working Out Disallowance Under Section 2

For Appellant: Shri S. Muralidhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 2Section 263

note that the ld. PCIT invoked jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act and held that the assessment order dated 24.01.2022 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and directed the Assessing Officer to pass fresh assessment order after making necessary enquiries and verification ... without considering the submissions and considering amendment made to section 14A of the Act by Finance Act, 2022, held the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue in respect of the disallowance to be made under section 14A of the Act. He argued that there

Jagriti Job Finder Private Limited, New Delhi vs. PCIT Central - 1, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2133/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishram/S Jagriti Job Finder Vs. Pcit (Central) -1 Private Limited, 222, 2Nd New Delhi-110055 Floor Hemkunt Chamber, 89, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110019 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcj5974E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Pandey

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

cannot be said to be insufficient and issuance of order under Section 263 of the Act holding such order erroneous as prejudicial to the interest of revenue is not called for. We further note that having regard to the specific queries raised by the Ld. AO mentioned hereinabove ... Delhi High Court or the Apex Court of India. Accordingly the order passed by the AO cannot be regarded as deemed to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue under Explanation 2 of the Act.” P a g e | 16 M/s Jagriti Job Finder

Madhuri Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT-4, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1266/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18 Madhuri Enterprises Vs. Pcit-4 Private Limited New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi-110085 Pan :..Aaacm8923F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sandeep Goel, Advocate, Kapil Goel, Advocate Department By Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit, Dr

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

jurisdictional conditions stipulated under the 1961 Act as underlying assessment order passed u/s 143(3) do not qualify the pre- requisite of being “erroneous and prejudicial to interests of revenue”; That in admitted and undisputed facts of the case, impugned ii) revision order passed ... With the above observations learned PCIT held the assessment was passed u/s 143 of the Act for the year 2017-18 was both erroneous and prejudicial, accordingly directed the assessing officer to redo the assessment de novo after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee of being heard before completing