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 Chennai held that revision under Section 263 could not survive on the issue of prior period expenditure after the Assessing O...
Income Tax : The Madras High Court held that the tax authorities failed to examine the assessee's request to consider exemption under the corre...
Income Tax : The Gujarat High Court held that once the Resolution Plan was approved under Section 31 of the IBC, all tax liabilities not formin...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that the Assessing Officer had conducted detailed enquiries on depreciation claimed on concession rights during c...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that assessments under Section 153A were invalid because no search warrant was issued in the assessee’s name. As t...
There was no enquiry by the Assessing Officer on the issues raised by the CIT in his order u/s. 263 of the Act. The lack of enquiry or inadequate enquiry by the Assessing Officer could be very much reason for assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act.
It is settled law that when an officer adopts one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in a loss of revenue or when two views are possible and the Assessing Officer takes one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, the order cannot be treated as erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.
The assessee has not claimed depreciation on goodwill it acquired commercial rights to sell products under the trade name and paid consideration in dispute for acquiring marketing and territorial rights to sell through dealers and distributors i.e. the network created by the seller for sale in India. Under the agreement. It become entitled to use of infrastructure developed by the seller. Rights were acquired since 1.4.1998 and these rights have all along been treated as an asset entitled to depreciation and depreciation was actually allowed in the past.
ITO V/s. DG Housing Projects Ltd. In the present case, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are correct as the CIT has not gone into and has not given any reason for observing that the order passed by the AO was erroneous. The finding recorded by the CIT is that order passed by the AO may be erroneous.
The facts in the case before Hon’ble High Court (supra) are identical to the facts in hand because the assessment order was passed by the AO as per the discussion with CIT and as per the office note dt. 28/12/2006 then the subsequent CIT cannot revise the assessment order. In view of the above discussion, we hold that when the AO has conducted an enquiry and taken a possible view then while exercising the jurisdiction u/s 263, the CIT cannot take a different view.
Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. DCIT (Delhi HC)- We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. The order passed under Section 263 became final. Learned Commissioner while exercising the powers under Section 263 has decided the issue himself and directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute the income on the basis of his decision. He has not relegated the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for re- adjudication.
CIT Vs. Software Consultants (Delhi High Court)- For exercise of power under Section 263 of the Act, it is mandatory that the order passed by the Assessing Officer should be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In the present case, the Assessing Officer did not make any addition for the reasons recorded at the time of issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act.
CIT Vs. Galileo India Pvt Ltd (Delhi HC) – Rule 8D has been held to be prospective in nature and applicable from assessment year 2008-09 by this Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT, New Delhi in ITA No.687/2009 dated 18.11.2011. However, in the said decision it has been observed that direct and indirect expenses have to be disallowed under Section 14A, when an assessee earns exempt income.
DCIT v. Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd (ITAT Delhi)- The Delhi Tribunal in this case has held that interest for deferment of advance tax is leviable under Section 234C of the Act where there is a shortfall in payment of advance tax while computing ‘book profit’ under the existing MAT provision under Section 115JB of the Act.
. These three pertain to the same assessee. While in one appeal, the assessee has challenged correctness of the revision order dated 19th October 2007, passed by the learned CIT under section 263 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2003-04, the remaining two appeals are cross appeals against CIT(A)’s appellate order in the matter of assessment framed to give effect to learned CIT’s revision order. As these appeals involve somewhat interconnected issues arising out of common set of facts and as these three appeals were heard together, all the three appeals are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order.
