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 ...
Asha Devi Vs PCIT (ITAT Bangalore) In the present case, limited scrutiny was to be done for verification of cash deposits and the source of cash deposits from the safe custody account is not examined by the AO by calling for relevant details from the assessee. The AO ought to have examined the same to […]
AI Champdany Industries Limited Vs Commissioner (Calcutta High Court) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MAX INDIA LTD. 2007 295 ITR 282 (SC) had taken note of the fact that Section 80HHC had been amended eleven times and different views existed on the day, when the COMMISSIONER (therein) passed […]
PCIT Vs Britannia Industries Limited (Calcutta High Court) The short issue involved in this case is whether the Commissioner could have invoked his power under Section 263 of the Act on the ground that the Assessing Officer did not conduct proper enquiry. We need not labour much to decide this issue as the learned Tribunal […]
CIT Cannot exercise Revisionary Powers under Section 263 of Income Tax arbitrarily without satisfying twin conditions for exercising of power
Instantly, we are confronted with a situation in which the revision was initiated on the basis of the AO sending a proposal to the CIT and not on the CIT suo motu calling for and examining the record of the assessment proceedings and thereafter considering the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.
Held that revisionary proceedings bad in law as initiated without conducting any enquiry or verification to establish that the assessment order is unsustainable
Section 263 cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the AO; it is only when an order is erroneous as also prejudicial to Revenue’s interest, that the provision will be attracted.
Sahita Construction Company Vs Pr.CIT (ITAT Indore) Perusal of records shows that assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS for verification of “contract receipts/fees mismatch, sales turnover mismatch and tax credit mismatch”. The issue of payment to contractors and tax deducted thereon was never a part of reasons for the limited Therefore, there […]
Held that revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of PCIT cannot be invoked for initiation of penalty proceedings without holding that the assessment order passed by the AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
In the absence of any specific finding of PCIT with respect to enquiries which should have been made, section 263 order not justified
