← All Phrases

“assessment order erroneous”

Rectification & RevisionSection 263Section 263534 judgments

SRI GURU RAMALINGESHWARA SOUHARDA PATTINA SAHAKARI NIYAMITHA ,MASKI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , HUBLI

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

ITA 1174/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, JCIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

already examined the issue. At best, it can be a case of difference of opinion. Such a situation does not render the assessment order erroneous. 7.4 The Ld. AR therefore submitted that since the AO had conducted enquiries and taken a possible view on the basis of materials available

CISCO COMMERCE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PCIT, BENGALURU-2, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1235/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. N. Hemalatha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 194JSection 263Section 40

Section 263 of the Act, the PCIT was justified in directing the assessing officer to conduct required inquiries and verifications, deeming the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue interests. 23. In response, the learned authorized representative asserted that the assessing officer conducted all necessary inquiries during the assessment proceedings ... relying on Explanation 2 to Section 263 of the Act, stating that the assessing officer did not conduct the necessary inquiries, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Since clause (a) applies—where an order is made without required inquiries or verification—the order

PROGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 625/HYD/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.625/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2021-2022 Progressive Constructions The Dcit, Limited, Hyderabad. Circle-5(1) Vs. Pin – 500 001. Telangana. Hyderabad - 500 004. Pan Aabcp2274M Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ca Pawan Kumar Chakrapani िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : & Sri Santi Pavan Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Sri Lv Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: And Sri Santi Pavan Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri LV Bhaskara Reddy, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 36(1)(vii)

discrepancy. The learned Pr. CIT observed that the Assessing Officer has not conducted proper enquiry and verified these issues which render the assessment order erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 03.01.2025 was issued u/sec.263 of the Act. In response

MAHAVEER SINGH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 840/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234FSection 263(1)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44A

supra) and Achal Kumar Jain (supra) held that non-initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has rendered, the assessment order erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The relevant finding of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court is reproduced ... Mahaveer Singh Vs. PCIT the omission of the Income Tax Officer to initiate penalty proceedings during the course of the assessment renders the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 19. In this view of the matter, we are in respectful agreement with the view taken

STARSHINE LAND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI-5, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2148/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 148Section 23(5)Section 263

notional ALV on unsold flats is a legally examinable issue and failure of the Assessing Officer to examine the same renders the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The legal position

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. BAU DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 6014/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil BhattFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263

CITIA) erred in not confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making the addition, thereby rendering the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.” 3. We have heard both the sides and have perused the material on record. 4. The relevant facts in brief

TRUHOME FINANCE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS SHRIRAM HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED),CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CORPORATE WARD 3(1) CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 781/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36

adequacy or scope of the enquiry, even if not\nto the extent now perceived by the Id.PCIT, does not, by itself,\nrender the assessment order erroneous or invalid. We also note that\nthe Assessing Officer undertook the necessary enquiries for\ncompleting the assessment and finalized the assessment after\nmaking appropriate

MUKUL ROHATGI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2427/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Respondent: Shri Sachit Jolly, Senior Advocate
Section 112ASection 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 24Section 263

Assessing Officer has not conducted any enquiry and hence, it attracts Explanation 2(1) to Section 263 of the Act which deems the assessment order erroneous insofar as is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue due to lack of such enquiry/verification. 8. At the time of hearing now before ... penalty under Section 271C of the Act has to be initiated which resulted in loss of revenue of *18,415/- rendering the assessment order erroneous insofar as is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue in terms of Section 263 of the Act. 40. We have heard the rival contentions

ZENSAR TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 3439/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2020-21
Section 10ASection 115JSection 142(1)Section 263Section 80GSection 80J

make\nproper enquiry on the issue. He submitted, such lapse on the part of the\nAssessing Officer has not only made the assessment order erroneous but it\nis also made prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. He submitted,\nExplanaiton-2 under Section 263 of the Act empowers the revisionary\nauthority ... taken by the Assessing Officer is not to the\nliking of revisionary authority or not acceptable to him, that will not make\nthe assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue.\n14.\nExplanation-2 under Section 263 of the Act does not vest unbridled\npower with the revisionary

STUDDS ACCESSORIES LIMITED,FARIDABAD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FARIDABAD, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3570/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalkra, Adv &For Respondent: Sh. Avikal Manu, CIT DR
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 80J

submitted that the issues raised by the Ld. PCIT are already considered during the assessment proceedings, therefore, it do not constitute the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 5. After considering the above submissions Ld. PCIT observed that, Assessing Officer had passed assessment order

ANIL TUTEJA,FATEHABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 780/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

order does not show any consideration or application of these provisions. The omission is apparent on the face of record and renders the assessment order erroneous in law. 28. Further, the learned DR submits that reliance placed by the assessee on decisions such as Ghanshyam (HUF) and Chet ... under section 57(iv), as inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009. Such non-consideration of binding statutory provisions clearly renders the assessment order erroneous. 44. The Ld. DR submits that the assessment order is completely silent on the detailed statutory framework governing taxation of interest on enhanced compensation

KARAN PRATAP SINGH,SIRSA, HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-1, SIRSA, HARYANA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 761/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

order does not show any consideration or application of these provisions. The omission is apparent on the face of record and renders the assessment order erroneous in law. 28. Further, the learned DR submits that reliance placed by the assessee on decisions such as Ghanshyam (HUF) and Chet ... under section 57(iv), as inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009. Such non-consideration of binding statutory provisions clearly renders the assessment order erroneous. 44. The Ld. DR submits that the assessment order is completely silent on the detailed statutory framework governing taxation of interest on enhanced compensation

MUNISH KUMAR LEGAL HEIR LATE SH GURDEEP SINGH,VILL MANAKPUR, YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 5, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 754/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

order does not show any consideration or application of these provisions. The omission is apparent on the face of record and renders the assessment order erroneous in law. 28. Further, the learned DR submits that reliance placed by the assessee on decisions such as Ghanshyam (HUF) and Chet ... under section 57(iv), as inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009. Such non-consideration of binding statutory provisions clearly renders the assessment order erroneous. 44. The Ld. DR submits that the assessment order is completely silent on the detailed statutory framework governing taxation of interest on enhanced compensation

MADHU GREWAL,CHANDIGARH vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 603/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

order does not show any consideration or application of these provisions. The omission is apparent on the face of record and renders the assessment order erroneous in law. 28. Further, the learned DR submits that reliance placed by the assessee on decisions such as Ghanshyam (HUF) and Chet ... under section 57(iv), as inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009. Such non-consideration of binding statutory provisions clearly renders the assessment order erroneous. 44. The Ld. DR submits that the assessment order is completely silent on the detailed statutory framework governing taxation of interest on enhanced compensation

PARVEEN KUMAR,229,VILLAGE MANAKPUR-II,TEHSIL JAGADHRI,HARYANA vs. PRABHJOT KAUR,PCIT PANCHKULA, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 576/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

order does not show any consideration or application of these provisions. The omission is apparent on the face of record and renders the assessment order erroneous in law. 28. Further, the learned DR submits that reliance placed by the assessee on decisions such as Ghanshyam (HUF) and Chet ... under section 57(iv), as inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009. Such non-consideration of binding statutory provisions clearly renders the assessment order erroneous. 44. The Ld. DR submits that the assessment order is completely silent on the detailed statutory framework governing taxation of interest on enhanced compensation

MANINDER JEET SINGH V.P.O. UDHAMGARH,JAGADHRI,HARYANA vs. PRABHJOT KAUR,PCIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 575/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

order does not show any consideration or application of these provisions. The omission is apparent on the face of record and renders the assessment order erroneous in law. 28. Further, the learned DR submits that reliance placed by the assessee on decisions such as Ghanshyam (HUF) and Chet ... under section 57(iv), as inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009. Such non-consideration of binding statutory provisions clearly renders the assessment order erroneous. 44. The Ld. DR submits that the assessment order is completely silent on the detailed statutory framework governing taxation of interest on enhanced compensation

RAM NIWAS,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE, SIRSA ROAD, INDUSTRIAL AREA, FATEHABAD

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 498/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

order does not show any consideration or application of these provisions. The omission is apparent on the face of record and renders the assessment order erroneous in law. 28. Further, the learned DR submits that reliance placed by the assessee on decisions such as Ghanshyam (HUF) and Chet ... under section 57(iv), as inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009. Such non-consideration of binding statutory provisions clearly renders the assessment order erroneous. 44. The Ld. DR submits that the assessment order is completely silent on the detailed statutory framework governing taxation of interest on enhanced compensation

RAKESH KUMAR,JAGADHRI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 456/CHANDI/2024[2015-16 ]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

order does not show any consideration or application of these provisions. The omission is apparent on the face of record and renders the assessment order erroneous in law. 28. Further, the learned DR submits that reliance placed by the assessee on decisions such as Ghanshyam (HUF) and Chet ... under section 57(iv), as inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009. Such non-consideration of binding statutory provisions clearly renders the assessment order erroneous. 44. The Ld. DR submits that the assessment order is completely silent on the detailed statutory framework governing taxation of interest on enhanced compensation

ASHOK KUMAR THAKRAL,JAGADHRI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA , PANCHKULA

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 455/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

order does not show any consideration or application of these provisions. The omission is apparent on the face of record and renders the assessment order erroneous in law. 28. Further, the learned DR submits that reliance placed by the assessee on decisions such as Ghanshyam (HUF) and Chet ... under section 57(iv), as inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009. Such non-consideration of binding statutory provisions clearly renders the assessment order erroneous. 44. The Ld. DR submits that the assessment order is completely silent on the detailed statutory framework governing taxation of interest on enhanced compensation

KARTAR SINGH, FATEHABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 335/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

order does not show any consideration or application of these provisions. The omission is apparent on the face of record and renders the assessment order erroneous in law. 28. Further, the learned DR submits that reliance placed by the assessee on decisions such as Ghanshyam (HUF) and Chet ... under section 57(iv), as inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009. Such non-consideration of binding statutory provisions clearly renders the assessment order erroneous. 44. The Ld. DR submits that the assessment order is completely silent on the detailed statutory framework governing taxation of interest on enhanced compensation

Showing 1–20 of 534 · Page 1 of 27

...