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 ...
While framing of assessment in pursuance of revisional order passed under section 263, AO was entitled to consider only those items which had been considered by CIT and was not entitled to consider any other item afresh for making addition.
Mukand Sumi Metal Processing Limited Vs PCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Provisions of section 56(2)(viib) invoked in the notice u/s. 263 by the ld. CIT is not applicable to the assessee company. As the assessee company was falling under section 2(18) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being a company in which public are substantially interested. This […]
When a notice under section 263 dealt with several issues, which were not subject-matter of re-assessment proceedings, then, two years period contemplated under section 263(2) would begin to run from date of original assessment and not from date of re-assessment, CIT issued notice under section 263 from date of re-assessment, therefore, the same lacked jurisdiction as it was hit by limitation, thus, the notice was quashed.
ITAT Mumbai quashes CIT order reversing Ambuja Cements assessment, citing lack of scientific basis for provision of slow-moving inventory.
ITAT states that AO had made specific enquiry into loan transactions of assessee based on the CASS parameter. In response to enquiries made under section 133(6), loan creditors had filed their documents/details to substantiate/prove their identity(ies), creditworthiness and genuineness of the loan transactions. AO having examined all the details had not drawn any adverse inference against any loan creditors and did not follow a view ‘unsustainable in law’ and assessment order was not the result of non-application of mind or any inadequate enquiry, accordingly, invocation of jurisdiction under section 263 was untenable.
Gauhati High Court in the case of Leela Choudhary vs. CIT 289 ITR 226 held that Order passed under section 263 of the I.T. Act without considering the reply of the assessee would not be valid.
M/s Himadri Chemicals & Industries Ltd. Vs Pr. CIT (ITAT Kolkata) Ordinarily under the mercantile system of accounting, expenditure is deductible when the liability to settle the same is accrued, irrespective of whether it is ‘due’ or not. However, in the case of a contingent liability, there is no present existence to discharge the same […]
Where AO after making adequate enquiries and verification held that forward contract loss was allowable as normal business loss, CIT was not justified in treating the same as speculative one and the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
If the view taken by the AO was a plausible view and if it results in loss of revenue, it could not be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for the purpose of invoking the power under section 263.
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) Revisional Commissioner is expected show that the view taken by the AO is wholly unsustainable in law before embarking upon exercise of revisionary powers. The revisional powers cannot be exercised for directing a fuller inquiry to merely find out if the earlier view taken is erroneous particularly when a […]
