It is evident from the word ‘or’, occurring for the first time in sub-clause (a) or (b) of clause (6) of section 6, that the two conditions contemplated in those sub-clauses are alternate and these are not cumulative. The fulfillment of either of the conditions would be sufficient to treat an individual or a Hindu undivided family as ‘not ordinarily resident’ in India.
For invoking revisionary powers the Commissioner of Income Tax has to exercise his own discretion and judgment. Here the Commissioner of Income Tax has invoked the provisions of section 263 at the mere suggestion of the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
Abani Kumar Dutta Vs. ACIT (ITAT Kolkata) Argument of Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the CIT in his revision order u/s 263 of the Act only directed the AO to examine the applicability of sec. 194G read with section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and not genuineness of the expenditure.
Krypton Industries Ltd. V/s. DCIT (ITAT Kolkata)- Whether the action of AO for framing the assessment under section 147 is within his jurisdiction though the time for scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) has not lapsed.
Deepak Nagji Vira Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) The monies are borrowed, incurring brokerage charges for the purpose, only for lending the same to a company at a predefined, agreed rate of interest, i.e., 12% p.a. That is, the assessee
ITAT Pune held In the case of Span Overseas Ltd. vs. CIT that from the show cause notice, it is clear that the CIT has invoked the provisions of section 263 on the proposal submitted by the DCIT and deficiencies in the assessment order pointed out by the DCIT.
Mangi Lal Sethia Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) In this present case, we find no live link between the reason to believe and reopening of case u/s 147 of the Act. It was a loan entry in the books of the assessee and the same was also settled within the same year.
Recently, ITAT Amritsar in a decisions in case of Rohit Tandon ITA 345/2009 pronounced on 05-03-2015 had an occasion to deal with the issue of powers vested with ITAT regarding recall of its order, when it recalled its earlier order rendered against the assessee.
ITAT Bangalore held In the case of M/s. Meritor LVS India (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT that the transfer pricing officer (TPO) has drawn conclusions on the basis of information obtained by issue of notice u/s.133(6) .This information which was not available in public domain could not have been used by the TPO,
ITAT Pune held In the case of M/s. Meta Rolls & Commodities Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT that in the instant assessment year i.e. 2010-11, there is no order of Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs and there is no evidence of any clandestine removal of goods without payment of Excise duty
