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 ...
The Tribunal held that estimating business income at 10% of turnover without citing comparable cases or industry benchmarks is unsustainable. Arbitrary profit estimation must be supported by material evidence.
The Tribunal held that reassessment notices issued after 01.04.2021 for AY 2015-16 are time-barred. Such reopening is invalid despite reliance on TOLA, and must be quashed.
The tribunal held that dismissal for delay and confirmation on merits without effective hearing violated principles of natural justice, warranting remand for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal held that reassessment initiated through a jurisdictional officer instead of the mandatory faceless mechanism was invalid. Notices under Section 148 issued after 01.04.2021 must follow the faceless scheme, failing which the entire assessment collapses.
The dispute involved additions of partners capital treated as unexplained cash credits. The Tribunal did not rule on merits but remanded the matter due to procedural violation by the appellate authority. It highlights that appellate orders must be reasoned and speaking.
The dispute centered on whether omission to verify exceptional items prejudices revenue. The Tribunal upheld revision, emphasizing Explanation 2 to section 263. The ruling reinforces that absence of inquiry itself is sufficient ground for revision.
The issue was whether revision could be made to examine disallowance under section 14A despite no exempt income being earned. The Tribunal held that without exempt income, the assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to revenue.
The issue was whether deduction under section 80P could be allowed when the return was filed beyond the due date. The Tribunal held that non-compliance with section 80AC made the assessment erroneous, justifying revision under section 263.
The PCIT sought to revise the assessment for lack of arms length determination. The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer cannot be faulted when the TPO did not act. The decision reinforces limits on section 263.
While an error in computation was acknowledged, prejudice to Revenue was not established. The Tribunal quashed the revision for lack of both ingredients. The ruling clarifies strict thresholds for invoking section 263.
