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...
Kusumlata Sonthalia vs. PCIT (ITAT Kolkata) Preliminary issue of whether the addition could be framed u/s 153A of the Act in respect of a concluded proceeding without the existence of any incriminating materials found in the course of search. The scheme of the Act provides for abatement of pending proceedings as on the date of […]
NIIT Foundation Vs CIT (ITAT Delhi) Online Coaching considered as Education u/s 2(15) hence eligible for Exemption under section 11/12 The issue under consideration is whether the CIT(A) is correct in holding that the activity carried out by the Appellant is not in the nature of ‘education’ within the meaning of Section 2(15) of the […]
Whether the higher rate of depreciation can be granted to the vehicles used for the display of advertisement under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The reasons recorded for reopening of the assessee are very foundation of the reassessment proceedings. However, same analogy can also be applied in ongoing ‘Limited Scrutiny’ in which the AO has been directed to examine the only specified limited issues and this stand of the assessee can ignite the litigation.
Issues have been examined by the A.O and just because the opinion as arrived by the A.O is at a variation of the opinion of the learned Pr. CIT, would not grant the learned Pr. CIT the powers of revision u/s 263 of the Act.
As in the present case before us, issues subject to revision were pertaining to original assessment and not the reopened assessment; the limitation should also start from the original assessment. In this case as original assessment order u/s 143(3) of the act was passed on 16.01.2014, the revision thereof could have been taken up to 31.3.2016
PCIT Vs Prince Water House (Calcutta High Court) Order dated 23.03.2015 passed by the AO giving effect to the directions of the tribunal dated 04.03.2014 (passed u/s 254 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act) did not deal with the issue of allowability of premium on account of Accountants Risk Policy. The show cause notice u/s 263 […]
Additions of Undisclosed Income Can be made only on the basis of the entries made in the documents which give corroborative evidence and not just on presumption
It has been held in various decisions that action u/s. 263 can be taken only when there is lack of enquiry or no enquiry. However, in the instant case necessary enquiry was conducted. Therefore, merely because the Ld. Pr. CIT does not agree with the manner of enquiry conducted by the AO he cannot substitute his own reasons and held the order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
The issue under consideration is that, when two views are possible and A.O. adopt one of the view and passed his order accordingly. But that view is not acceptable by PCIT, in such case can PCIT adopt its one of the other views and call the order of A.O. the erroneous?
