My development group is using Azure scrum for managing projects. If a PBI is not completed from one sprint to the next, the scrum master creates a new PBI and clones all tasks and resources. That seems like wasted effort when the assigned sprint could be updated on the PBI and tasks to be done. Am I missing something?
Instead do like Scrum guide advises: "If a Product Backlog item does not meet the Definition of Done ... it returns to the Product Backlog for future consideration".
If the Item indeed changed significantly from it's original, then yeah, it might be worth abending/withdrawing the old and create a new clean/clear Item (but those Points shouldn't contribute to that Sprints velocity).
Usually what's going on in the behaviour you describe is: the team or SM want/need their velocity to look good (i.e. take credit for work done - even though the Item isn't Done). Encourage the team to be more transparent about work which didn't complete - this Transparency is principle#1 with Scrum ;) Flesh out what the Teams is afraid of by doing this? Managements wrath because some vanity metric?
It's ok, the Item will usually complete in the next Sprint and that sprint has higher points, but always look at the *average of points across N sprints* (never the velocity of any single sprint).