← 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

Halmira Estate Tea Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 710/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 144Section 144BSection 250Section 263

dated 26.09.2021 ld. Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act has held that the impugned order passed by the AO appears to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, that order of the ld. Pr. CIT has been challenged by the assessee before the Tribunal bearing

Aaravi Developers, Ahmedabad vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 659/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.659/Ahd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Aaravi Developers The Pr.Cit-3 बनाम/ A-312, Siddhi Vinayak Tower Ahmedabad B/H. Divya Bhaskar V/S. S.G. Highway, Makarba Ahmedabad – 380 051 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abdfa 5385 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16-03-2024 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Ahmedabad (Hereinafter Referred To As “Pcit” In Short) In Exercise Of The Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” In Short) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. Aaravi Developers Vs. The Pr.Cit Asst. Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

well as on facts by exercising jurisdiction under Section 263, though the order passed by the AO under Section 143(3) was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Aaravi Developers vs. The Pr.CIT Asst. Year : 2018-19 3. The learned Principal CIT erred in law as well ... PCIT, it is a settled law that for exercising revisionary powers under Section 263 of the Act, the order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. This twin condition is highlighted in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial

J vs. Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vadodaravs.the Pr. CIT, Vadodara-1, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 411/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43Section 49

dropping the proceedings u/s 263 despite the fact that the original order passed by the AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Without prejudice to the above Valuation of Goodwill: 6. The learned PCIT erred in fact and in law in disputing the amount ... regarding above mentioned issues, and make necessary additions to total income in accordance with provisions of Act, renders the assessment order passed both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue within the meaning of section 263 of the Act Here it is relevant to reproduce the relevant portion

Trafigura India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT-6, Mumbai

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

ITA 1131/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountat Member Trafigura India Pvt Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit-6 Unit No.1101, A-Wing, 501, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Plot No. C, 66G Block, Bhavan, Mg Road, Bkc, Mumbai – 400051. Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadct3128N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agrawal.Ar Respondent By : Shri Biswanath Das.Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-6, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal.ARFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das.CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

Assistant Trafigura India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-14(3)(1), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as AO) is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as the assessment order has been passed in accordance with applicable provisions of law and after considering ... depreciation. Finally the Pr. CIT is of the opinion that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and issued notice u/s 263 of the Act dated 17.11.2022. In compliance to notice, the assessee has filed

Mahadev Enclave Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT(Central), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 636/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Dhaka (CIT)
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

PCIT has erred on facts and in law in holding that the assessment order dt. 15.06.2021 passed u/s 143(3) is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as the said order has been passed without invoking the provision of section 14A of IT Act, 1961 read with Rule ... PCIT passed order u/s 263 on the ground that since AO has not invoked section 14A of the Act, his order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue but after considering the detailed submission of assessee it is held that the assessment order cannot be regarded as erroneous

Baroda Rajasthan Khestriya Gramin Bank, Ajmer vs. PCIT, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 253/JPR/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shailesh Mantri, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

case as :- A) The order under section 143(3) dated 31/12/2019 and under section 147 Dt. 25/03/2022 are not in any way erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue. (B) As the case has been subjected to scrutiny twice, the revision shall tantamount to third time enquiries against a genuine ... Balance Sheet figure reported in ITR vis a vis the amount debited in the Profit & Loss account was found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, therefore, ld. PCIT proposed to modify the order as per provision of section 263 of the Act. Before doing

Advertising Agencies Association of India, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption ), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assesseeITA No

ITA 2370/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: ShriAmol Kirtane (CIT-DR.)
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

were not fulfilled in the present case; (b) The order sought to be revised by the CIT in the present case was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and in fact the entire exemption u/s 11 has been denied by the Ld. AO and therefore there ... assessment without taking any other view in the assessment order. The ld CIT by invoking provision 263 of the Acttreatedthe assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The ld. CIT on perusal of assessment record it is found that the assesseehad conducted“Goa Fest” in Goa annuallywherein

Nityanand Baug Co Operative Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed in the above terms

ITA 2209/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Br Baskaran & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhannityanand Baug Co-Operative Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Society Limited Income Tax Plot No. 80/83, Nity Anand Baug, R. Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway C. Marg, Chembur, Mumbai – 400 Station, Commercial Complex, 074. Vashi Navi Mumbai – 400 Pan: Aaaan6410C 703. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

therefore held that the Ld. AO has failed to properly examine the issue and the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Nityanand Baug Co-operative Housing Society Ltd; A.Y. 2018-19 5. Aggrieved by this order of the Ld. PCIT, the assessee is in appeal ... applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case of the assessee. b. The order of the Ld. AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue because the Ld. AO has taken one of the possible views on this matter after considering the various judicial pronouncements

Chandrakant Narayan Patkar Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 2034/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Omkareshwar Chidarachandrakant Narayan Vs. Cit(Exemption), Room.No 322,3Rd Floor, Patkar Charitable Trust Income Tax Office, 1St Floor, Patkar Trust Pmt Building, Office Buillding, Sankar Seth Road, Station Road, Pune-411037, Near Canara Bank, Maharashtra. Dombivli (E), Thane-421201. Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. Aaatt2801N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 147Section 148Section 263

perusal of the records and information found that, the order passed by the AO under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and has issued revision notice u/sec 263 of the Act considering the facts 3 Chandrakant Narayan Patkar Charitable ... satisfied with the explanations and submissions and is of the opinion that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, and accordingly issued directions to the Assessing Officer to pass assessment order afresh de-novo vide revision order u/sec

Sanjay Sawhney, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 34(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4051/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

investigating further on the details furnished by the assessee. Accordingly, the ld. PCIT concluded that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on the ground of ‘lack of inquiry’ by the ld. Assessing Officer and set aside the assessment order ... basis of recommendation by the concerned Assessing Officer/Joint Commissioner. The said Assessing Officer has categorically held that the order of his predecessor is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Thereafter the case record was called for by the Commissioner. If the recommendation would not have received from

Zaveri Exports Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-3(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 452/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2018-19 Zaveri Exports Private Limited, Vs. The Acit, Central Circle – 3(4), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaacz1286A. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate. Revenue By: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri H. Srinivasulu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 292CSection 38Section 65BSection 68

Central) Hyderabad, erred in invoking the provisions of section 263 as the assessment order dated 19-03-2021 of Ld. AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the Interests of the Revenue. 2 3. The ld, PCIT (Central), Hyderabad, failed to appreciate that a Pen drive found during the $e5rch ... Assessing Officer has taken one 8 view with which the Commissioner of Income-tax does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law, or the AO has completely omitted

Snnehshilp Constructions, Aurangabad vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Nagpur

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

ITA 413/NAG/2023[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur11 Jul 2024AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Milind BhusariFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 40

direction: ".....In these circumstances in our considered opinion, though we agree with the Id. CIT that the order of the assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, we are not in agreement with the finding that the flat rate of 8 percent should also

San Finance Corporation, Nagpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 40/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur11 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 143(3)Section 263

that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, San Finance Corporation ITA no.40/Nag./2022 1961 dated 19.12.2019 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue when all the necessary enquiries were duly made by the assessing officer and duly explained by the assessee ... details furnished by the assessee only examined and passed the assessment order and submitted that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. San Finance Corporation ITA no.40/Nag./2022 6. We have heard the rival arguments, perused the material available on record

Spark Mall and Parking Pvt. Ltd, Nagpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 33/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur11 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, Spark Mall and Parking Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.33/Nag./2022 1961 dated 27.11.2019 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue when all the necessary enquiries were duly made by the assessing officer and duly explained by the assessee ... show cause notice and after receiving the reply, he passed the impugned order holding that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and accordingly directed the Assessing Officer to re–frame the assessment in accordance with law. On being aggrieved

Anant Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. PCIT, Pune-4, Pune

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

ITA 636/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.636/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Anant Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Vs. Pr.Cit-4, Maryadit, Pune Ist Floor, Panbajar Building, Chattrapati Shivaji Maharaj Market Yard, Bibwewadi, Pune – 411 037 Maharashtra Pan : Aaaaa4259L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 263Section 5

conferred the power of revision on the Commissioner of Income Tax u/s. 263 of the Act in case the assessment order passed is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. In order to invoke the power of revision, the above two conditions are required to be satisfied cumulatively. References

Samit Ray, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cen. Cir. 3(4), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 780/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 778/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Arati Ray,………………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Adopr8465R] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 779/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Mallika Roy,…………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Acgpr7888F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 780/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 1

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

judge the action of CIT taken under section 263. (i) The CIT must record satisfaction that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Both the conditions must be fulfilled. (ii) Sec. 263 cannot be invoked to correct each and every type

Malika Roy, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cen. Cir. 3(4), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 779/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 778/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Arati Ray,………………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Adopr8465R] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 779/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Mallika Roy,…………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Acgpr7888F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 780/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 1

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

judge the action of CIT taken under section 263. (i) The CIT must record satisfaction that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Both the conditions must be fulfilled. (ii) Sec. 263 cannot be invoked to correct each and every type

Arati Ray, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cen. Cir. -3(4), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 778/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 778/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Arati Ray,………………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Adopr8465R] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 779/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Mallika Roy,…………………………..……………Appellant 11/1, Dishari Bhawan, B.T. Road, Belghoria, Kolkata-700056 [Pan:Acgpr7888F] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..…Respondent Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700107 & I.T.A. No. 780/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 1

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

judge the action of CIT taken under section 263. (i) The CIT must record satisfaction that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Both the conditions must be fulfilled. (ii) Sec. 263 cannot be invoked to correct each and every type

Palanisamy Rani, Erode vs. PCIT-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1490/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1490/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Principal Commissioner Of Palanisamy Rani, V. Income Tax, 38, Emm Road-2, Chennimalai Coimbatore. Road, Erode – 638 001. [Pan:Biqpr-2991-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

jurisdiction of revisional powers of Section 263 of the Act, considered the order of assessment passed by AO, U/s.143(3) dated 28/12/2019 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and issued a show cause notice dated 10/03/2022 by fixing the hearing date as 15/03/2022 and passed an exparte ... made without verification of the actual facts and the order so made, suffers in as much as it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, requiring an intervention to cure the order made erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Though in the present proceedings, the assessee

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 20(1) Mumbai, Parel, Mumbai vs. Manjudevi Chandan Maljain, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 327/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Manjudevi Chandan Income Tax-20(1) Maljain, Flat No. Lal Baug, Parel, 2201/2202, 22Nd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Ashok Tower, D Wing, De Maharashtra – 400012 Babasaheb Ambedkar Road, Parel, Maharashtra -400012 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aajpj5077F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ajay Modi
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260ASection 263Section 68

passed by the ld. Pr. CIT, Mumbai -20 on 12.02.2021 holding that order passed u/s 143(3) dated 16.11.2017 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue on account of transactions entered into by the assessee in respect of shares of penny stock of M/s Vishwajyoti Finance