TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 185
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....null and void since the asst. order passed u/s 143(3) was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2. The learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Kolhapur, (PCIT) erred in Law and on facts in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and setting aside the assessment order dated 31st March, 2015 passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) for the Assessment Year 2010-11, for a fresh determination of income and proper examination of facts and law. 3. The learned PCIT failed to appreciate that the learned A.O. had allowed the claim of deduction u/s. 80IB (11C) after duly verifying all the conditions for the eligibility of the claim of deduction made by the appellant company and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(2) of Section 80IB simply did not arise and accordingly, the revision order passed by the learned PCIT is bad in law and the same may kindly be quashed. 7. The learned PCIT erred in holding that the order of the AO is erroneous for the reason of not verifying the fulfillment or otherwise of the conditions u/s. 80 IB (1) & (2) which reasons are different than the reasons stated in the notice issued under section 263. 8. The learned PCIT erred in not appreciating that the view taken by the learned A.O. was certainly a possible view and therefore, the asst. completed u/s 143(3) could not be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 9. The order of the PCIT passed u/s 263 of the Act is not in accordance with Law, i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tice under section 263 of the Act was issued to the assessee. The Commissioner took note of the fact that assessment order passed for assessment year 2010-11 was set aside by his predecessor vide order under section 263 of the Act on 30.03.2015. In view of above said facts and circumstances and after taking note of various judicial precedents, the Commissioner held the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act for assessment year 2012-13 to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and the same was set aside with direction to Assessing Officer to make fresh de novo assessment after proper examination of facts and law and affording proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. The assessee is in appeal ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t and hence, assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue in assessment year 2010-11. Following similar reasoning, the Commissioner also exercised jurisdiction for assessment year 2012-13, against which the assessee is in appeal before us. 9. We find that the Tribunal in assessee's own case in assessment year 2010-11 had taken note of the provisions of section 80IB(11C) of the Act and claim made by assessee as to whether it had fulfilled the conditions and it was held that the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings had verified the claim of assessee and had found that all the conditions were satisfied by the assessee, hence the order allowing deduction claimed....