While discussing the Revisional powers of CIT(A) u/s 263 it was held that the Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely, i) the order is erroneous; and ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.
CIT Vs. Shri Varanasi Khanta Rao (Andhra Pradesh High Court) When once the Commissioner has got power to point out the errors which had the effect on the revenue, the Tribunal cannot sit as an appellate authority on the order of the Commissioner passed under Section 263 of the Act.
Sri Damodarlal Badruka Vs. ITO (Andhra Pradesh High Court) It is well settled that once an assessment is re-opened by virtue of the order passed by CIT under Section 263 of the Act, the initial order of assessment ceases to be operative.
High Court held that Business is a continuous activity which is done year to year. Here, in this case the Assessee let out his godown and shown income as Income from Business instead of Income from property to which the High court do not agree
CIT Vs. M/s. Sileman Khan Mahaboob Khan (Andhra Pradesh High Court) Merely because one of the objectives, in the partnership deed, was to let out the godowns would not mean that the assessee had undertaken the activity of construction of godowns and letting them out as business activity.
In the present facts of the Case the Hon’ble High Court held that Explanation 3C to section 43B is having retrospective effect from 01/04/1989. Therefore, conversion of interest amount into loan would not be actually deemed to be actual payment.
Whenever an amount deducted as tax at source becomes incapable of being being adjusted or counted towards tax payable, it acquired the character of an income. In such an event, it partake the character of any other income and is liable to be dealt with accordingly.
Language of the Section 54F and 54B is very clear that it relates to unmarried daughters. Here the undisputed fact is that the property is purchased in the name of married daughters. When the Legislature thought it fit to specify the words ‘unmarried daughters’, the Court cannot substitute the words.
Explanation 3 will be applicable in case where live issue, which was subsisting at the time of original assessment and if such issue has escaped the determination of the assessing officer, can be a ground for reopening. Any new issue that has cropped up subsequently on new set of facts, the aforesaid Explanation has no application.
A careful analysis of Guidance Note on Revision of the Audit Report issued by the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India would reveal that it is permissible for the respondent to rectify and revise the audit report even after it is submitted.
