Income Tax : The Tribunal held that CIT(A) cannot enhance income under Section 251 on matters not considered by the Assessing Officer during as...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that revisional powers under Section 263 cannot be exercised when the Assessing Officer has already examined the iss...
Income Tax : ITAT quashed PCIT’s Section 263 order, holding AO’s treatment of survey income as business income valid and not erroneous or p...
Income Tax : Ahmedabad ITAT quashes reassessments based on ACB report, ruling the AO lacked independent "reason to believe" and only used borro...
Income Tax : ITAT Pune upholds PCIT's order u/s 263, setting aside an assessment for failure to verify ₹82.64 crore in advances for property...
Income Tax : National Chamber of Industries & Commerce, U.P has made a representation against Indiscriminate notices by the Income Tax Depa...
Income Tax : KSCAA has made a Representation on Challenges in Income Tax Related to Rectification Proceedings, Order Giving Effect, Delay in P...
Income Tax : One of the key sources of dispute is the existing arrangement for follow up on audit objections by Internal Audit Party and the Re...
Income Tax : The ITAT Amritsar held that a valuation report by itself cannot justify addition under Section 69 without evidence of extra paymen...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that amortization of BOT road project expenditure must be computed based on the actual concession period and not ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that the reassessment order could not be revised under Section 263 since the conditions for treating jewellery e...
Income Tax : ITAT Hyderabad held that assessment orders passed pursuant to earlier remand directions were barred by limitation under Section 15...
Income Tax : Delhi ITAT held that an Assessing Officer cannot make additions beyond the specific issues remanded by the Principal Commissioner ...
It is not a case of lack of enquiry or lack of proper enquiry. The PCIT does not in as many words states that there was lack of enquiry or lack of proper enquiry and all that is said is that the assessing officer did not verify these aspects which is factually incorrect. Therefore, it is not a case where the PCIT could have invoked his jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act.
On facts we find that issues have been enquired into at length by AO and orders cannot be set aside on mere whims & fancies of Revisionary Authority
Only because the ld Pr. CIT being a higher authority and more wiser in experience considered that enquiry in some other aspects would have resulted in different opinion, does not give jurisdiction to exercise revisional power u/s 263. That being so the grounds raised are allowed and the impugned order of revisional authority is set aside.
ITAT held that matter relating to wages/labour expenses which was not subject matter of limited scrutiny cannot be raised in revisionary proceedings u/s 263 for the first time.
Sanjiv Kumar Mittal Vs PCIT (ITAT Delhi) On appraisal of the evidences placed before us, we find that vide notice dated 10.08.2018 specific queries were raised by the AO in relation to the issue raised for the purposes of limited scrutiny, i.e., ‘Payment of tax in cash during demonetization period’. In response, the assessee has […]
ITAT Chandigarh held that AO erred in applying the rate of tax as 30% under section 115BBE instead of amended rate of tax 60% Accordingly revisionary power under section 263 rightly applied as order passed was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
Held that the mere fact that the assessment order has been passed in a cryptic manner, by itself cannot make the order erroneous or pre-judicial to the interest of Revenue Accordingly revisionary powers under section 263 of the Income Tax Act not invocable.
Trivitron Healthcare Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai) The PCIT has questioned provision for warranty expenses amounting to Rs.2,25,71,530/-. According to the PCIT, there is a five times increase in provision for warranty expenses for the AY 2014-15 when compare to AY 2013-14. Although, the assessee has not explained rational behind substantial increase in expenses, […]
AO has clearly conducted the enquiry and revenue did not pin point the error on the part of the assessing officer the order passed after due application of mind cannot be subjected to proceeding u/s. 263 of the Act.
ITAT Delhi held that where two views are possible and AO adopted the one which Commissioner doesn’t agree then in such case revision under section 263 of the Income Tax Act not permissible for mere difference of view.
