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 ...
On the issue of share premium money and unsecured loan, the Commissioner held that the order of the Assessing Officer suffers from several defects as the Assessing Officer has not raised any question while recording the statement with respect to the credentials of the applicant companies
It is settled law that that frequency and magnitude of transaction are also important factor to decide whether the transaction is business transaction or investment transaction. Now in our considered opinion, the magnitude of share transaction in this case does call for any enquiry
Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax in his notice u/s 263 dated 18.3.2014 stated that prima facie deduction claimed u/s 80IC of the Act by the assessee is not justifiable on the following grounds :- 1. Assessee is assembling and trading LCDs and it is not carrying on manufacturing of goods.
In the present case before us, the assessee has offered the capital gains tax in the next year and there has not been any prejudice to the revenue. Further, the assessee has explained to the query raised during the scrutiny proceedings before the Assessing Officer was answered to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. Hence, the Order is not erroneous.
AO has not made any discussion regarding the subjects raised by the Ld. CIT u/s. 263 and the AO has mechanically accepted what the assessee wanted him to accept without any application of mind or enquiry. Further, no evidence had been placed that the claim made by assessee was objectively
The Commissioner after recording cogent reasons found that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. He was therefore, on facts of the case entitled to exercise revisional powers under section 263 of the Act. While doing so, he remanded the proceedings before the Assessing Officer for full inquiry and fresh consideration. He had not given any specific directions to consider the issue in particular manner. In any case, the Tribunal further clarified this issue in the impugned order as can be seen from the noted portion of the order itself.
In the present case, it was repeatedly emphasized that the assessee’s dividend income was confined to what it received from investment made in a sister concern, and that only one dividend warrant was received. These facts, in the opinion of this court, were material, and had been given weightage by the Tribunal in its impugned order. There is no dispute that the investment to the sister concern, was not questioned; even the Commissioner has not sought to undermine this aspect.
CIT in the present case had also initiated the proceedings under s. 263 of the Act on the basis of the audit objections. Show-cause notice was issued in the present case for non-deduction of tax at source, out of certain expenses incurred by the assessee and order passed by the CIT under s. 263 of the Act directing the AO to redetermine the income of the assessee by applying a rate other than the rate applied by the AO, being without jurisdiction, is not tenable in law. We find no merit in the plea of the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue that the source of information in the present case was audit objection, but there was independent application of mind by the CIT.
Assessment Officer in its order dated 28th January, 2005 did not make provision for disallowance of expenditure in terms of Section 14A of the I.T. Act. The assessee has paid interest of Rs.4,49,02,775/- out of which only a sum of Rs.1,33,51,132/- was shown to be relatable to the non-taxable income. The assessee did not maintain any separate accounts for the purpose of the exempt income. The assessee did not give one to one co-relation between the funds available and the funds deployed.
Assessee had given Assessing Officer a short description of an allocation of expenses based on which it had preferred a claim under Section 80-IB, but, unless and until assessee could make a meaningful link of the basis adopted by it for such allocation of expenses, with its eventual claim of deduction under Section 80-IB of the Act, it could not be considered as a proper and sufficient submission of details enabling a rationale decision to be reached regarding the quantum or allowability of its claim.
