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 ...
R.P. Polypacks Pvt. Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) In brief, the issue according to the ld. Commissioner is that the assessee had made provision of Excise Duty, which was not an allowable expenditure and ld. Assessing Officer has erred in accepting this claim of the assessee in an assessment order passed under section 143(3) of […]
ITAT Bangalore held that AO allowed the claim of assessee after due application of mind and on proper consideration of the material available on record. Therefore, the order of Ld. CIT passed u/s 263 of the Act cannot be sustained.
AO had wrong assumption of facts and by applying incorrect law without due application of mind allowed claim of interest paid on borrowed capital u/s. 24(b). Therefore, in our opinion, PCIT correctly exercised its jurisdiction
AO cannot scrutinise Income Tax return without issuing section 143(2) notice and order without such notice suffers from patent irregularity and it cannot be made a foundation for subsequent proceedings either 263 or any other proceeding.
ITAT Bangalore held that before setting aside the matter the PCIT must have some material which would enable to form prima facie opinion that the order passed by the AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Revision under section 263 of Income Tax Act not possible on guess work.
We notice that there is nothing on record to show that the AO has examined this aspect at all. We noticed that the AO had asked for details of sales and expenses, but the assessee has furnished only the Profit and Loss account.
Kalyani Seetharaman Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) ITAT noted that the PCIT has not at all given a finding that the order of the AO i.e., the assessment order is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue and how. We have already noted the finding of PCIT in above para 4 and noted that simple […]
It appears that after completing the assessment the assessing officer addressed the PCIT stating that certain error has occurred in the assessment order and requested him to review the order under section 263 of the Act.
Income from assets given on lease, though offered to tax under normal provisions, was not routed through Profit and Loss Account and the accounting treatment given by assessee was in accordance with mandatory AS-19 which mandated assessee to reflect investment in asset under finance lease as lease receivable in balance-sheet on asset side under the head loans and advances.
Where Assessing Officer, after following directions of Principal Commissioner regarding examining of claim made by assessee for exemption under section 54F, passed an assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 263 holding that assessee was eligible for exemption as it held only one residential property during year, subsequent revision order passed by Principal Commissioner setting aside impugned assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue was to be quashed
