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...
The words other right of occupancy appearing in the Explanation 1 of section 32(1) should be construed ejusdem generis with the word lease and if that is so, the right of occupancy should be of such a nature that the assessee should possess an interest in the property and the occupancy must be referable to that interest
The assessee, a statutory body established under the Chartered Accountants Act 1949 for regulating the profession of Chartered Accountants, obtained exemption u/s 10(23C)(iv) pursuant to a notification issued by the CBDT. The notification provided that the exemption would not apply to profits and gains of business unless the business was incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the assessee and separate books of accounts were maintained.
M/s Frick India Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) – There was a composite agreement titled as ‘intellectual property license and non compete agreement’ vide which several valuable rights including the right to use the trademark, technical know-how including right to export to 30 countries have been granted over a long period of ten years to the assessee, which gave rise to a benefit of enduring nature. However, the AO has allowed the same as revenue expenditure without application of mind and without keeping in view the stand taken in earlier years by the AO which was also confirmed by the CIT(A) on the very same facts.
The assessee, a hotel, incurred expenditure on acquiring licenses and permissions from various government bodies. This was classified as “goodwill” in the books and depreciation was claimed on the ground that it was an “intangible asset” u/s 32(1)(ii). The AO allowed the claim. The CIT passed an order u/s 263 in which he took the view that the AO had not applied his mind to the issue and that the order was “erroneous & prejudicial to the interests of the revenue”. The CIT set aside the assessment order and directed the AO to pass a fresh order. On appeal by the assessee, HELD allowing the appeal: (i) The CIT had not recorded any finding to show how the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Merely because the AO had not examined whether the approvals / registrations etc. amounted to intangible assets and had not applied his mind to the examination and verification of the allowability of depreciation on intangible assets did not mean that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. It was not the case of the CIT that depreciation was not allowable on such items ofintangible assets; (ii) An authority exercising revisional power cannot direct the lower authority to complete the assessment in particular manner. UOI vs. Tata Engineering AIR 1998 SC 287 followed; (iii) On merits, approvals/registrations etc amount to “intangible assets” and entitled to depreciation u/s 32(1) (ii).
Where the Assessing Officer has not carried out necessary enquiry which ought to have been carried out for allowing deduction to the assessee under section 40(b), the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and CIT has rightly invoked the provisions of section 263.
Where an order passed by the Assessing Officer is subject to an appeal that has been filed, the power of the Commissioner to invoke his revisional jurisdiction under section 263 can only extend to such matters which have not been considered and decided in the appeal.
Only in the cases where the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and not prejudicial to the interest of the assessee can be reopened under section 263 and the assessee is not eligible to claim any new benefit in the assessment proceedings pursuant to section 263.
Under sec.68, when an amount is found to be credited in the books of the assessee, he has to prove the identity of creditor, his creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions. No doubt, the source of income is there with the creditors but it does not conclusively prove that the amount has come from that source.
CIT revised the order u/s 263 to include the sum of Rs.1,75,32,600/- in the total income of the assessee under Sec.41(1) of the Income Tax Act on the ground that there had been a complete cessation of liability in regard to this amount in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1982-83 – ITAT confirmed the order – held that – when the Assessing Officer took a possible view
Explore the intricacies of Section 263 under the Income Tax Act with the Supreme Court’s perspective in Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs. Max India Limited (2007) 295 ITR 282. The retrospective amendment in 2005, addressing the complexities of Section 80HHC, does not trigger Section 263. The court emphasizes the existence of two plausible views on ‘profits’ at the time of the Commissioner’s order in 1997. Uncover the nuanced interpretation of ‘prejudicial to the interests of the revenue’ and the significance of the 2005 amendment in this insightful judgment.
