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...
Bogus share capital: Law laid down in Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT 155 ITD 171 (Kol), Rajmandir Estates 386 ITR 162 (Cal) etc that the CIT is entitled to revise the assessment order u/s 263 on the ground that the AO did not make any proper inquiry while accepting the explanation of the assessee insofar as receipt of share application money is concerned cannot be interfered with
What is contemplated by Section 263, is an opportunity of hearing to be afforded to the assessee. Failure to give such an opportunity would render the revisional order legally fragile not on the ground of lack of jurisdiction but on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
For the purposes of exercising jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act, the conclusion that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue had to be preceded by some minimal inquiry. In fact, if the ld. PCIT is of the view that the AO did not undertake any inquiry, it becomes incumbent on the LD. PCIT to conduct such inquiry.
M/s Amira Enterprises Ltd. Vs. The Pr. C.I.T. (ITAT Delhi) The assessee had filed various replies to the ld. PCIT in response to notice u/s of the Act 263 of the Act stating that all the issues raised by the PCIT have been examined by the AO during the course of assessment. The PCIT has […]
In our considered view, no writ petition is maintainable against a show-cause notice. The petitioner, if so advised, may submit objections against the show-cause notice and if any adverse order is passed, he shall have his remedy against the same in accordance with law.
Where the CIT(A) was already ceased of the matter wherein the matter has been contested before him by the AO, the ld. Pr. CIT does not have the jurisdiction to exercise his powers u/s 263 of the Act on the same matter as per the explicit provisions contained in clause (c) to explanation 1 to section 263 of the Act.
Failure to issue notice on any particular issue does not vitiate the exercise of power under Section 263 as long as the assessee is heard and given opportunity
Lack of opportunity at the revisional stage under Section 263 does not vitiate the entire order, or the proceedings; rather it is a curable defect. Court is of the opinion that the ruling in Commissioner of Income tax v Amitabh Bacchan 2016 SCC Online SC 484 is decisive; it upholds the power of the Commissioner to consider all aspects which were the subject matter of the AO’s order, if in his opinion, they are erroneous, despite the assessee’s appeal on that or some other aspect.
An order cannot be revised by the equally situated or equally ranked authority or by any authority who is not authorised under the law. In the instant case the authorised authority is none else but the Commissioner of Income Tax or Principal Commissioner of Income Tax.
Tribunal was not justified in holding that the failure to initiate penalty proceedings in the course of the assessment did not render the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Commissioner had the jurisdiction to revise such an order.
