If AO adopts a plausible view, even if two views are possible, the assessment cannot be deemed erroneous merely because the PCIT holds a different opinion.
Detailed analysis of the ITAT Jodhpur decision in Gaurav Purohit vs PCIT, covering the grounds of appeal, legal arguments, and implications for future cases.
The court highlighted that jurisdiction under Section 263 should not be exercised at the instance of the assessing officer. This precedent reinforced the Tribunal’s decision to set aside the PCIT’s order in Reeta Lakhmani’s case.
Explore the Calcutta High Court judgment in PCIT Vs Kaushalya Dealers Pvt Ltd under Income Tax Act 1961, focusing on Section 263 jurisdictional issues and assessment validity.
Relying on various judicial precedents, including the cases of Harish Sharma vs. ITO and Daulatram Rawatmull vs. CIT, the representative contended that in the absence of any separate source of income, the surrendered amount should be treated as business income.
Understand Parmod Singla Vs ACIT (ITAT Chandigarh) case on excess stock surrendered during survey and its tax implications under Sections 69, 69A, and 115BBE.
Assessee has placed sufficient documents and materials on record to prove identity and creditworthiness of shareholders and genuineness of transaction of receiving share capital and share premium, invoking provisions of Section 68 of was not justified
Read the detailed analysis of the ITAT Chandigarh verdict on DDK Spinning Mills vs DCIT, focusing on the implications of Section 69B and 115BBE of the Income Tax Act.
Where it has been sufficiently established that share applicants had substantial creditworthiness and investments had been made by assessee’s own sister concern/group companies having mostly common directors and thus, establishing creditworthiness and genuinity of investments, additions under section 68 had been rightly been deleted.
Once source of funds is taxed in the hands of share applicant companies, it cannot be added as unexplained income in the hands of assessee company.
