← 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

Kakkabe vs. S Bank Limited, Kodugu

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

ITA 490/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Kakkabe Vssn Bank The Principal Ltd., Commissioner Of Main Road, Kakkabe, Income-Tax, Kodagu – 571 212. Mysore. Pan: Aaabk0958P Vs. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit I Date Of Hearing : 31-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Order Dated 06.03.2020 Passed By Ld.Pr.Cit, Mysore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Order As Passed By The Hon'Ble Pr.Cit U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Is Arbitrary, Unjust & Illegal Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant Case. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & On Law, The Hon'Ble Pr.Cit Has Assumed The Jurisdiction U/S 263 Under Incorrect Application Of Law As Twin Condition Of "Erroneous Order & Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue" As Enunciated U/S 263 Were Not Satisfied Simultaneously & Therefore Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 263 & Impugned Order Passed Thereunder Liable To Be Quashed As Void-Ab-Initio. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances & Law, The Original Order Passed By The Learned Ao Was After Proper Application Of Mind & Proper Appreciations Of Law & The Intervention Caused By The Hon'Ble Pr. Cit By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 263 Has No Sanction Of Settled

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT I
Section 143(3)Section 260Section 263Section 80P(1)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

Pr.CIT has assumed the jurisdiction u/s 263 under incorrect application of law as twin condition of "erroneous Order and Prejudicial to interest of revenue" as enunciated u/s 263 were not satisfied simultaneously and therefore assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 and impugned Order passed thereunder liable to be quashed as void

Joynet Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-27, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 868/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 868/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Joynet Developers Llp बिधम/ Pr. Cit Room No. 401, 4Th Floor, 101/B, Bellona, Pant Nagar, Vs. 90 Feet Road, Ghatkopar Tower No.6, Vashi Station East, Mumbai-400075. Complex, Vashi-400703. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aamfk0186D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hemant Shah Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 25.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax(“Pcit”)- 27, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “(Pcit)”] In View Of The Provisions U/S 263 Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “The Following Grounds Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-27 Has Erred In Setting Aside The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The Learned

For Appellant: Shri Hemant ShahFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

section 14A read with rule 8D(2), Commissioner having failed to make out that order of AO was erroneous as well as prejudicial to interest of revenue, order passed under 263 was to be set aside.” 9. We also relied upon the decision in the case of Gitesh Tikmani & Gitesh