← All Phrases

“prejudicial to interest of revenue”

Rectification & RevisionSection 263Section 263273 judgments

The decision most relied on for prejudicial to interest of revenue is Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (243 ITR 83), cited in 2,943 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on prejudicial to interest of revenue

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. 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.

Mantola Co-operative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. v. CIT
50 Taxmann.com 278 · 2014 · High Court
242
citing judgments

A cooperative society is not entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for interest income earned from investments and deposits which are not attributable to its primary business. An assessment order erroneously allowing such a deduction is revisable under Section 263 as being erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, or subject to reassessment under Section 147.

DIT v. Jyoti Foundation
357 ITR 388 · 2013 · High Court
210
citing judgments

An assessment order cannot be deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer conducted an inquiry and applied their mind during the original assessment, as Explanation 2 to Section 263 does not permit unending inquiries by the revisional authority.

CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd.
341 ITR 293 · 2012 · High Court
205
citing judgments

A Commissioner can revise an assessment order under Section 263 if it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. This includes cases where the Assessing Officer fails to make further inquiries before accepting the assessee's statements in the return.

Judgments citing prejudicial to interest of revenue

M/S Majju Image & Brand Consultants Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 2015/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Majju Image & Brand Consultants Pvt. Ltd., The Pr. No. G1, Accolade Commissioner Of Apartments, Income Tax, Millers Road, 2Nd Cross, Bangalore – 4, Benson Town, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 046. Pan: Aaicm6586E Appellant Respondent : Shri B.S. Balachandran, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order U/S. 263 Dated 25/01/2018 Passed By Ld.Pr.Cit, Bangalore – 4 For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Revisionary Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Pcit) U/S.263 Dated; 25-01-2018 Is Opposed To The Facts Of The Case & The Law & Therefore, It Is Liable To Be Set-Aside.

For Respondent: Shri B.S. Balachandran
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

reliance was placed on the following case laws where in the Commissioner of Incometax was justified in treating assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue where the AO has no not made proper enquiries of issues which he should have been done while completing assessment. (a) Rajmandir Estates

M/S Microland Ltd, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 1669/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Microland Ltd., The Principal Micropolis, # 236, 92/1A, Commissioner Of Konappana Agrahara, Income Tax, Electronic City Phase – 1, Bangalore -4, Bangalore – 560 100. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aabcm2704P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B.K. Manjunath, Ca : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 02-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessing Against Order Dated 16/04/2018 Passed By The Ld.Pr.Cit, Under Section 263 Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Above Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax In So Far It Is Against The Assessee Is Against The Law, Facts, Circumstances, Natural Justice, Equity & All Other Known Principles Of Law. 2. The Cit Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S 263 Without First Satisfying That The Assessment Order Suffered From An Error Which Is Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri B.K. Manjunath, CA
Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 without first satisfying that the assessment order suffered from an error which is prejudicial to interest of revenue. Page 2 of 9 3. The CIT erred in issuing the notice u/s 263 when there was no error from the records available ... Learned CIT erred in setting aside the order passed u/s 143(3) dated: 30.09.2016 by the AO as erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue and directing afresh assessment. 8. The Learned CIT erred in setting aside the issue of loss on foreign exchange forwards contracts