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 ITAT held that an assessee’s procedural lapses cannot override statutory entitlement to deductions under section 10A. The AO must verify substantive conditions, including STPI registration and export realization, before rejecting a claim.
Tribunal held that AO had conducted detailed inquiries on a partner’s debit balance and correctly accepted it as capital withdrawal, not a loan. PCIT’s revision under Section 263 was based on assumptions and a change of opinion, not any factual error. The order was quashed.
Court upheld Tribunal’s finding that Assessing Officer examined cash deposits and adopted a permissible view by treating them as sales. Since the issue had been enquired into and two views were possible, revision under Section 263 could not be justified.
The court upheld the Tribunal’s view that the AO had examined salary and business promotion expenses, making Section 263 revision invalid. It held that when two views are possible, revisional interference is unwarranted.
The AO’s assessment included detailed examination of depreciation, warranty provisions, and Section 80G deductions for CSR donations. ITAT Ahmedabad found that the AO’s conclusions were plausible and in line with judicial precedents. The revisionary order under Section 263 was quashed, affirming that the AO’s order was not erroneous or prejudicial to Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the revisionary order was invalid because the authority failed to demonstrate how the assessment was erroneous or prejudicial to revenue. The AO’s enquiries and acceptance of a plausible view were upheld.
ITAT Delhi held that PCIT’s revision under section 263 on alleged bogus sales was invalid since the same transactions were already under appeal before CIT(A). Substituting the AO’s judgment without showing assessment was erroneous and prejudicial was impermissible.
The case examined whether the tax officer was justified in rejecting the assessee’s DCF-based share valuation under Section 56(2)(viib). The Tribunal held that once DCF is chosen, the AO cannot switch to NAV merely because subsequent financials differ from projections
ITAT Kolkata deleted ₹3.32 crore addition under Section 68, holding that complete documentary evidence proved the genuineness and identity of investors. Low income or meagre business activity of subscriber companies cannot justify treating share capital as unexplained.
Tribunal ruled that appeals delayed beyond a reasonable period without valid reasons cannot be admitted for consideration under Section 263.
