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 : ITAT held an assessment passed after the taxpayer's death was invalid in law, quashed the order, and treated all remaining issues ...
Income Tax : ITAT deleted additions after finding the AO relied only on ACB information without independent inquiry or supporting evidence. ITA...
Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata held that a loan received by a company that was not a shareholder of the lender could not be taxed as deemed dividend...
Income Tax : The Court held that Section 263 could not be invoked where the AO had made inquiries and accepted the assessee's explanation....
Income Tax : The Court held that Section 263 could not be invoked where the AO had raised queries, examined replies and completed the assessmen...
The Tribunal ruled that an assessment order passed after DRP directions is still subject to revision under Section 263. It held that there is no statutory bar preventing the Principal Commissioner from revising such orders.
The ITAT held that revisional powers under Section 263 cannot be exercised when the Assessing Officer has already examined the issues during scrutiny. Mere disagreement with the assessment cannot justify revision.
The Tribunal ruled that both conditions for Section 263 revision must exist simultaneously. Since no exempt income was earned, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial.
The Tribunal ruled that simultaneous proceedings arising from reassessment and revision for the same year could lead to multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings. It restored the entire matter to the Assessing Officer for consolidated de-novo adjudication.
The ITAT relied on surrounding circumstances, documentary evidence, and the principle of human probabilities to conclude that cash consideration was paid in a land transaction. The Tribunal confirmed the addition of unaccounted sale consideration as short-term capital gains.
The Court directed the PCCIT to appoint a senior officer to re-examine a refund claim where both parties lacked decades-old records. A reasoned decision must be taken to ensure any legitimate refund is not denied.
The Tribunal upheld addition under Section 69 as the assessee failed to establish that the LIC investment belonged to the HUF. Mere assertion of agricultural income without documentary evidence was held insufficient.
ITAT Delhi held that interest awarded under Section 28 is an accretion to compensation and cannot be taxed as income from other sources. The appeal was allowed following Supreme Court precedent.
ITAT Delhi held that initiation of re-assessment proceedings under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is liable to be quashed as without jurisdiction since revisionary proceedings under section 263 on the same issue was already dropped.
The ITAT Kolkata held that revision under Section 263 was invalid where the Assessing Officer had already examined service tax liability and depreciation claims during assessment. The order was not erroneous or prejudicial to Revenue.
