← All Phrases

“assessment order erroneous”

Rectification & RevisionSection 263Section 263534 judgments

The decision most relied on for assessment order erroneous is Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (243 ITR 83), cited in 2,943 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on assessment order erroneous

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.

Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO
106 ITR 1 · 1977 · Supreme Court
486
citing judgments

The principle of finality dictates that stale issues should not be reactivated, and lapse of time brings repose to judicial and quasi-judicial controversies. A Commissioner cannot substitute their judgment for the Assessing Officer's unless the assessment order is legally erroneous, not merely less elaborate, thus limiting revisionary powers under Section 263.

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.

Judgments citing assessment order erroneous

Shree Hari Enterprise, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 822/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 194JSection 263

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, अहमदाबाद न्यायपीठ 'B' अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT

Kumarswamy Gangasharaish Kallur, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1391/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. E. Shridhar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 119Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271BSection 44A

assessee is wrong. Thus, the not mentioning by the ITO to initiate penalty proceedings during the course of assessment / reassessment renders the Assessment Order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The learned DR relied on the Order of the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT, Mumbai

Mohammad Osman Mohammaf Haroonmotiwala, Auranganbad vs. PCIT- Nashik 1, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1133/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69Section 69B

therefore it can be inferred that he has failed to cause proper inquiries and consequential verifications rendering the impugned assessment order erroneous and 8 ITA No.1133/PUN/2024, AY 2019-20 prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The relevant findings and observations of the Ld. PCIT are as under ... hands of A.O. Therefore, it can be inferred safely that AO has failed to cause proper inquiries and consequential verifications which rendered assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 07. In the light of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, I am of the considered opinion that

Balaram Construction Limited, Banaskantha vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as non- maintainable

ITA 727/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2018-19 Balaram Construction Ltd. The Pcit 309, 3Rd Floor, Shital-9 Vs Ahmedabad-1 Opp. Bihari Bagh, Palanpur Ahmedabad – 380 015 Banaskantha – 385 001 (Gujarat) (Gujarat) Pan: Aaacb 6264 C

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

income of the assessee. That, the issue, therefore, stood examined by the AO and the Ld.PCIT, therefore, had erred in holding assessment order erroneous on this aspect since the assessee had clearly demonstrated the amount to represent advance from a trade debtor. 4.4. To this, it was pointed out that

Sshri Kuldip Singh, Chandigarh vs. Pr.CIT-1, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 103/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 103/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Kuldeep Singh, Vs. The Pr. Cit-1, 2010, बनाम Chandigarh Sec 21-C, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Bllps7083L अपीलाथ"/ Assessee ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2025 आदेश/Order Per Paresh M. Joshi, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee U/S 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Herein Referred To As ‘The Act’] Before This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing No. Itba/Rev/F/ Revs/ 250 /2020-21/1031467646 (1) Dated 14.03.2021 Of Ld. Pcit, Chandigarh-1 Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Relevant A.Y.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 253Section 263

facts and circumstances of the case, the failure of the Assessing Officer make enquiries/verification to arrive at the correct law mistake the assessment order erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Hence, the said assessment order dated 24.12.2018 is held to be erreneously

Tulsi Reality, Vadodara vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 134/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.134/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Tulsi Reality The Pr.Cit-1 बनाम/ G5 Anand Deep Complex Vadodara – 390 007 V/S. Gotri Road (Gujarat) Gotri, Vadodara – 390 021 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aafft 8908 B (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.03.2022 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vadodara-1 (Hereinafter Referred To As "Pcit") Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017- 18, Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Dated 12.12.2019. Tulsi Reality Vs. The Pr.Cit-1 Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269SSection 271DSection 37(1)

violations thereof. 3.1. The PCIT was of the view that the failure of the AO to conduct proper inquiries and verifications rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue under Section 263 of the Act. Accordingly, the assessment order passed under Section ... hold that the PCIT was justified in invoking jurisdiction under Section 263 as the AO’s failure to conduct proper inquiry rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, the order passed by the AO under Section 143(3) of the Act is set aside

Penugonda Venkateswara Rao, Tenali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tenali

ITA 222/VIZ/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon'Ble Vice- & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.222/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/ Assessment Year: 2019-20) Penugonda Venkateswara Rao D.No. 16-3-137 Sri Shanmuka Jewellery Mall Sharoff Bazar, Tenali – 522201 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Adkpp6347A] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) V. Income Tax Officer – Ward -1 Income Tax Office Opp. Sai Baba Temple Bose Road, Tenali – 522201 Andhra Pradesh (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By सुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : Shri Gvn Hari, Ar : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr) : 19.12.2024 : 28.01.2025 आदेश /Order Per Shri S Balakrishnan: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Hereinafter “Ld.Pr.Cit"] Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023-24/1063745349(1) Dated 31.03.2024 For The A.Y. 2019-20 Arising Out Of Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘Act') Dated 26.09.2021.

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, विशाखापटणम पीठ, विशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVISION” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री दुव्वुरु आरएल रेड्डी

Shiv Vegpro Private Limited, Kota vs. PCIT-Udaipur, Udaipur

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

ITA 1014/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, (Adv.) &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, (CIT-DR)
Section 147Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

after considering the submissions of the assessee started her discussion from page 22 para 6 however, not feeling satisfied held the subjected assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on in the following words: “6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the material ... detailed inquiries or because he did not write specific reasons for accepting the explanation—Non-mentioning of these reasons did not render the assessment order "erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue"—Hence, the impugned revision order is vacated” 4.2 B)Disallowance of unpaid interest payable to banks

M/S N.A.M. Expressway Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 580/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.580/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) N.A.M.Expressway Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle-5(1) Delhi Hyderabad [Pan : Aadcn3131D] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms Ananya Kapoor & Shri Tarun Chanana, Ar (Through Virtual Mode) रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Shiva Sewak, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 30/10/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 28/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2019 Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Ld.Pcit], Hyderabad-4 Pertaining To A.Y.2018-19 On The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Shri Salil KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Sewak, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 43B

against Rs.73.93 crores, because the Assessing Officer failed to examine the issues in right perspective of law with relevant material, which rendered the assessment order erroneous, in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Therefore, set aside the assessment order and directed the Assessing Officer ... PCIT, the Ld. AO has not conducted required enquiries to be conducted under respective provisions of the Act, which rendered the assessment order erroneous, insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It is the contentions of the assessee that the assessment order passed

Shummy Poulose Puthanangady, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 27, Mumbai, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1448/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jigar MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Dhule – CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263

Ojas Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.”. The learned PCIT held that the AO has failed to properly examine the issue, which has rendered the assessment order erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Accordingly, the learned PCIT set aside the assessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s.144B

Cambridge Technology Enterprises Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 536/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.536/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Cambridge Technology Vs. Dcit Enterprises Limited Circle-1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaacu3358G] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Shiva Sewak, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 28/10/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2019 Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Ld.Pcit], Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2012-13. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company, Engaged In The Business Of Rendering Software Services, Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y.2012-13 On 26.09.2012, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.4,05,55,380/- Under Normal Provisions Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) & Rs.1,47,09173/-

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Sewak, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

while completing the assessment, this point was not considered. Omission to disallow capital loss resulted in short computation of income, which rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Ld.PCIT, further noted that from the Profit & Loss account, the assessee company has shown prior

Ankur Goyal, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2524/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 263

established such relationship and has not applied Rule 8D correctly. In my considered view, non-application of Income Tax Rule renders the assessment order erroneous as it has been passed not in accordance with the rule and therefore, it is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue ... High Court in the case of Clix Finance India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) hold that the Ld. PCIT is not justified in holding the assessment order erroneous and prejudice to the interest of the revenue. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Pavan Prabhudyal Bhadada, Shahibaug, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Ahmedabad, Income Tax Office, Vejalpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 620/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Prakash D Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 263

Accordingly, Principal CIT held that the Assessing Officer’s failure to make the necessary additions resulted in a loss of revenue, rendering the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 4. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by Principal CIT, setting

Lycos Internet Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1769/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, СА
Section 14ASection 249(4)(a)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

issue. There is no quarrel on the point that, a complete lack of inquiry on the part of the Assessing Officer renders the assessment order erroneous in so far as it is prejudice to the interest of the Revenue. However, in the case in hand, the Assessing Officer has issued

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad vs. Lycos Internet Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1550/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1550/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Lycos Internet Ltd Income Tax, Circle 16 (1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaacl5827B (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1769/Hyd/2018 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Lycos Internet Ltd Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Circle 16 (1) Pan:Aaacl5827B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/01/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Are Two Appeals, One By The Department Against The Order Dated 23/06/2017 Of The Learned Cit (A) & Another By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 26/02/2018 Passed

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT(DR)
Section 14ASection 263

issue. There is no quarrel on the point that, a complete lack of inquiry on the part of the Assessing Officer renders the assessment order erroneous in so far as it is prejudice to the interest of the Revenue. However, in the case in hand, the Assessing Officer has issued

Me N Moms Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Mumbai

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

ITA 1606/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2017-18 Me N Moms Private Limited, Pr. Commissioner Of 2 Amar Chs, 8Th Road, Income Tax-4, Khar (W), Vs. 6Th Floor, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Pan : Aaecm6253C M.K.Road, Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Heliwal, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “F” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

Vinod Kumar Singhal, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1004/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar S. V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. K. Mishra, PR.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 263

received by him after the assessment proceeding was completed. The Commissioner took into consideration the said valuation report and found he assessment order erroneous. In that context, the question which had arisen for consideration was whether the Commissioner in exercise of jurisdiction Page 12 of 14 under section

M/S Niwas Residential & Commercial Properties Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax-8, Mumbai

ITA 2114/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 14ASection 263

amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2022 shall have prospective application. Hence, both the reasonings given by the Ld.PCIT to hold the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue would fail. In any case, we notice that the AO has raised a specific query

The Vardhman Stampings Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 363/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

Section 263Section 43(5)Section 73

Briefly put, his arguments were to the effect that i) the ld.Pr.CIT without appreciating the correct facts of the case, had held the assessment order erroneous; ii) considering the facts of the case, the issues were squarely covered in favour of the assessee by various judicial decisions and the distinction ... appeal arises from the order of the ld.Pr.CIT in exercise of his revisionary powers, passed u/s 263 of the Act, holding the assessment order erroneous causing prejudice to the Revenue. And our scope of adjudication is therefore, confined to deciding, whether the ld.Pr.CIT has rightly found so, in accordance with

The Vardhman Stampings Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 362/AHD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah andFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT-DR
Section 263Section 43(5)Section 73

Briefly put, his arguments were to the effect that i) the ld.Pr.CIT without appreciating the correct facts of the case, had held the assessment order erroneous; ii) considering the facts of the case, the issues were squarely covered in favour of the assessee by various judicial decisions and the distinction ... appeal arises from the order of the ld.Pr.CIT in exercise of his revisionary powers, passed u/s 263 of the Act, holding the assessment order erroneous causing prejudice to the Revenue. And our scope of adjudication is therefore, confined to deciding, whether the ld.Pr.CIT has rightly found so, in accordance with