section 263

Kamal Kishore Mukati Vs PCIT (ITAT Indore) The facts in brief are that the assessee entered into an agreement in March 2006 for sale of agricultural land used for agricultural purpose. He received sale consideration in parts through banking channels. Sale deed was finally registered between March 2006 and April 2008. Before registering th...

PCIT Vs Brahma Centre Development Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) Revision by CIT Held Invalid Where Interdiction of Assessment Order In Substitution of View Taken By AO Is Not Permissible Under Section 263 To answer this issue, one would have to bear in mind, the following aspects. i. Was there an enquiry carried out by […]...

Hill Queen Investment (P) Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITAT Kolkata) In this case issue is whether the ld. Pr. CIT is correct in invoking his powers u/s 263 of the Act. In our considered view, the Assessing Officer has called for and verified all the details and documents in connection to the purchase and sale of […]...

CIT Vs Y.V. Subramaniam (Madras High Court) The Tribunal, while allowing the assessee’s appeal, observed that the assessment order was passed after making full verification and the order of the CIT is based on no reason and he has simply given an abrupt finding that the assessment order is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial [&he...

Since the revision proceedings u/s 263 had been apparently triggered only based on borrowed satisfaction i.e Audit Objection and not based on independent application of mind by PCIT therefore, the revision order passed by PCIT u/s 263 was hereby directed to be quashed....

CIT Vs Y. V. Subramaniam (Madras High Court)  On a perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, it is clear that the Tribunal has categorically held that the order passed by CIT is based on no reason and he has simply given an abrupt finding that the assessment order is erroneous. Further, the Tribunal, […]...

Galaxy Surfactants Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Once an Assessing Officer prepares a draft assessment order, that is the end of his domain of powers so far as framing of assessment is concerned- unless of course there are any directions from the Dispute Resolution Panel which are required to be implemented by the Assessing Officer. [&hel...

Manoj Singhal Vs PCIT (ITAT Delhi) On going through the details, we find that the deduction claimed u/s 54F was Rs.6,12,10,100/- whereas the deduction eligible was Rs.6,11,19,500/-. Thus, there is a computational difference of Rs.90,600/- in the claim of deduction u/s 54F which could have been rectified u/s. 154. The provisions of section...

Pooja Marketing Vs. Pr. CIT (ITAT Mumbai) In the present case before us, the assessee had offered its entire income including income by way of winnings from lotteries on unsold lottery tickets, as income chargeable under the head ―Profits and gains of business or profession“. However, the ld PCIT had sought to treat the income [&h...

Since AO passed the assessment order and accepted the return filed by assessee after examining the issue regarding increase in capital account as assessee had credited his capital account with agricultural income and the capital gain from sale of flats and had reflected that same in its capital account, therefore, CIT had exceeded jurisdi...