← 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

Inductotherm (India) Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT - 1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 369/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2018-19 Inductotherm (India) Pvt.Ltd. The Principal Commissioner Of Sm-6, Road No.11, Sanand Ii Vs Income Tax-1, Industrial Estate, Bol Village, Ahmedabad Sanand, Ahmedabad – 382 170 (Gujarat) Pan: Aaaci 3672 B अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Ld. Pr.Cit, Ahmedabad-1, [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Pcit”] Dated 30/03/2023 In Exercise Of His Revisionary Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], Challenging The Initiation Of Proceedings Under Section 263 Of The Act For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged Order Raising The Following Grounds Before Us: 1. That On Facts & In Law, The Learned Pcit Has Grievously Erred In Exercising Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act. 2. That The Learned Pcit Has Grievously Erred In Law & On Facts, In Holding That The Ao Has Not Properly Examined The Issue Of Deduction Of Claim Of Excess Provision Of Inductotherm (India) Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Pr.Cit-1 Asst.Year: 2-18-19

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

while completing the assessment has not properly seen and examined the above issue and, therefore, the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 3.6. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order of Ld. PCIT, the assessee has filed this appeal before us. Ground

Rajib Chakraborty, Kolkata vs. ITO- Ward-30(3), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1279/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 253(3)Section 253(5)

because the capital gain was not deposited in the capital gain account scheme, the revisionary authority has treated the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. In our view, learned PCIT has adopted a hyper-technical approach while dealing with the issue. When the basic

M/S Ganesh Builders, Panchkula vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 452/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR &
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 251Section 251(1)Section 271

Income Tax where powers u/s 263 of the Act can be exercised where he finds that the order of .the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. It was further, stated that power to enhance is prohibited for the issue which has not been looked into

M/S Luxmi Builders, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 451/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR &
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 251Section 251(1)Section 271

Income Tax where powers u/s 263 of the Act can be exercised where he finds that the order of .the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. It was further, stated that power to enhance is prohibited for the issue which has not been looked into

The Mullanpur Garibdas Co-Op Multipurpose Society, Mohali vs. DCIT, C-6(1), Mohali

ITA 645/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Garima Singh, CIT, DR
Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

aside the assessment order dated 31.1.2015 passed by the Assessing Officer in as much as the order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and as such, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act is beyond his competence. That the order of revision ... case, has been duly countered during the course of proceedings before him, clearly establishing that the order sought to be revised is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.” 2. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee has stated at the bar that he does

The Mullanpur Garibdas Co-Op Multipurpose Society, Mullanpur vs. Pr. CIT-II, Chandigarh

ITA 569/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Garima Singh, CIT, DR
Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

aside the assessment order dated 31.1.2015 passed by the Assessing Officer in as much as the order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and as such, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act is beyond his competence. That the order of revision ... case, has been duly countered during the course of proceedings before him, clearly establishing that the order sought to be revised is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.” 2. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee has stated at the bar that he does

The Mullanpur Garibdas Co-Op Multipurpose Society, Mohali vs. Pr. CIT-II, Chandigarh

ITA 515/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Garima Singh, CIT, DR
Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

aside the assessment order dated 31.1.2015 passed by the Assessing Officer in as much as the order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and as such, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act is beyond his competence. That the order of revision ... case, has been duly countered during the course of proceedings before him, clearly establishing that the order sought to be revised is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.” 2. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee has stated at the bar that he does

Mohammed Gyasuddin, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir.-30, Kolkata

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

ITA 571/KOL/2020[2012-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2024AY 2012-12

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 269SSection 271D

enquiries were already made by the AO and in any case the CIT did not come to a finding that the order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue nor did he himself made any enquiry.;” 4.1. During the course of hearing before us, the ld. Counsel ... cause to make such enquiries which are necessary to form a view as to whether the order of the ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. From the conspectus of the facts evident from the impugned order it is seen that at the stage

Mohammed Gyasuddin, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir.-30, Kolkata

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

ITA 570/KOL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 269SSection 271D

enquiries were already made by the AO and in any case the CIT did not come to a finding that the order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue nor did he himself made any enquiry.” 4.1. During the course of hearing before us, the ld. Counsel ... cause to make such enquiries which are necessary to form a view as to whether the order of the ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. From the conspectus of the facts evident from the impugned order it is seen that at the stage

Twara Diam, Bhavnagar vs. PCIT Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 90/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv., Shri Parimalsinh BFor Respondent: Shri Karun K Ojha, CIT D.R
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

However, the AO accepted the income offered by the assessee as per normal provision of the Act which makes the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, the learned PCIT issued notice under section 263 of the Act proposing to revise the assessment order ... record. In the present case, the assessment framed by the AO under section 143(3) of the Act has been held as erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of revenue for the reasons detailed below: i. Non-application of mind properly for the verification of the difference in the stock

Seikh Abubakkar Warish, Kanaidanga vs. PCIT, Asansol.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 915/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(2)Section 263

against the 7 AY: 2016-17 Seikh Abubakkar Warish assessee since the order sought to be revised by the ld. PCIT was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. From the fact, we notice that the assessee has duly shown the fixed asset excavator machine in his statement

ITO, WD.9(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 35/KOL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata……………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…....... Cross-Objector 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] Vs Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata …………..….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 07, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: This Appeal By The Revenue & Corresponding Cross-Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 08.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 263

Kolkata-II exercised his revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and held that the reassessment order framed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue for not verifying the subscriptions made by the share applicants. He accordingly set aside the matter ... Kolkata-II, Kolkata was of the opinion that the assessment so framed u/s. 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act 1961 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and an order dated 25.03.2013 was passed u/s 263 of the Act setting aside the said assessment order

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Department vs. Vetco Gray Pte Ltd, Singapore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2537/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Disha Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 263Section 44B

additions by opting correct legal positions. Failure to gather information, make inquiry and application of correct legal positions, made the AO's Order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. 4 Vetco Gray Pte. Ltd.  The Assessee being a non-resident and engaged in oil exploration contracts is covered by the specific ... past assessment years, assessment order cannot be held to be erroneous. Further, in order to invoke 263 proceedings, an order should be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Hence, one of the conditions for initiation of 263 proceedings is not fulfilled in the present case. 11. Based

Bp Marine Academy, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT(E)-1(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 4504/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms Padmavathy S

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 271

Marine Academy, Mumbai of the Act on 27.12.2017. Whereas the CIT(E) found that the assessment passed by the Assessing Officer (A.O) is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and observed that the assessee has accumulated of Rs. 4,90,55,690/- u/sec

M/S Olympus Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Cir-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1088/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 May 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1088/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Olympus Suppliers Pvt Ltd.……..…………............…...……………....Appellant 15/B, Clive Row, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aabco0624Q] Vs. Pcit, Circle-2, Kolkata……….…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 13, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 23.03.2015 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. This Is A Second Round Of Litigation Before Us. Earlier, The Assessee Had Filed Appeal Before This Tribunal Against The Impugned Order Of The Pr. Cit Passed U/S 263 Of The Act, However, The Said Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed Along With Three Other Cases By A Common Order Dated 05.08.2016. Being Aggrieved By The Said Order, The Assessee Preferred Further Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Calcutta High Court Bearing No. Itat/328/2017 Ia No.Ga/2/2017 (Old No.Ga/3184/2017). It Was Pleaded Before The Hon’Ble Calcutta High Court That The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed Along With Other Appeals, However, The Specific

Section 143(1)Section 151Section 263

have been discussed and, therefore, the observation of the ld. Pr. CIT that the assessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue was not based on any specific findings of the ld. Pr. CIT. The ld. counsel, in this respect, pointing ... said words suggest that the enquiries which are necessary to form a view as to whether the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue? A perusal of the impugned order of the ld. Pr. CIT reveals that the Ld. Pr. CIT had asked

Arathi Vinay Patil, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(4), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 604/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 44ASection 80Section 801ASection 80I

condition for claiming deduction had not been satisfied and, therefore, the action of the Assessing Officer in allowing rebate u/s 80-IA was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. After issuance of the notice the Commissioner of Income Tax passed the order dated 29.03.2007 whereby he held

M/S.Appollo Tyres Ltd, Ernakulam vs. The Pr CIT, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 72/COCH/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Sri.Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263Section 32A

There had been as a result an incorrect application of law (paras 6.1 and 6.2 of the impugned order). The assessment was thus erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and, accordingly, set aside for a de novo examination and adjudication per a speaking order in accordance with ... Industries Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC), upholding the order by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, renders an order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue; the other three being: - wrong assumption of facts; - incorrect application of law; and - omission to observe the principles

M/S. Kajekar Seva Shakari Bank, Bantwal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Mangalore

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

ITA 255/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Kajekar Seva Sahakari Bank, Vs. Ito, Pandavarakallu, B Kajekar, Ward –2(1), Bantal – 574 233, Karnataka. Mangalore. Pan : Aaaak 2473 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Satish Meriga, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2024

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Satish Meriga, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

justified in holding that the order of assessment passed u/s. 143[3] rws 143[3A] & 143[3B] of the Act dated 09/04/2021 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue on the ground that the same was not passed in accordance with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme ... PCIT and the impugned order dated 07.11.2023 was passed. In the said order, it was held that the Assessment Order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The PCIT directed the AO to deny the benefit of deduction under sections

Urmila Uttam Jhavar, Mumbai vs. Faceless, Delhi

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

ITA 208/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal: A.Y : 2018-19 Urmila Uttam Jhavar Vs Principal Commissioner Of 2 Homestead, . Income Tax Officer, Mumbai. 16, Dattatraya Road, Santa Cruz, (Respondent) Mumbai 400 054. Pan : Aaapj8879N (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

Accordingly, he initiated revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. After hearing the assessee, the Ld PCIT held that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue on the following two issues:- (a) Deduction allowed u/s 54F of the Act (b) Non-verification of taxability ... possible and the Income-tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law.” The principle which has been

Ramotar Choudhari HUF, Kolkata vs. PCIT 5 Kolkata, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1336/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1336/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ramotar Choudhari Huf.……..…………............…...……………....Appellant 7Th Floor, R.N 25 Fortuna Tower, 23A N.S. Road, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aanhr9093K] Vs. Pcit-5, Kolkata………….…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Pransukha, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 06, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 09, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 18.10.2023 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Pr. Cit In Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act & Thereby Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame The Assessment Afresh. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,55,970/- On 21.01.2014. Thereafter, An Information Was Received By The Assessing Officer From Investigation Wing That The Assessee Has

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 263

revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and observed that the assessment order passed u/s u/s 147 r.w.s 144B dated 30.03.2022 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The ld. Pr. CIT, accordingly, issued show-cause notice to the assessee on 15.02.2023 as to why the assessment order ... revised, the same being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The relevant part of show-cause notice is reproduced as under: "4.1. The assessment record in the case of M/s. Ramotar Choudhari HUF(PAN-AANHR9093K) for A. Y. 2013-14 was called for and examined by the undersigned