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 Mumbai set aside the PCIT’s revisionary order, holding that the AO’s decision to allow Section 80G deduction on voluntarily disallowed CSR expenses was a plausible view. The ruling reaffirmed the Supreme Court principle that Section 263 revision cannot be invoked merely for holding an alternate opinion.
High Court ruled that an AO’s failure to determine if a unit sale was a slump sale (S.50B) or short-term capital gain (S.50) made the assessment erroneous and reversible under Section 263.
Tribunal held that sale proceeds of fixtures sold with a flat could not be taxed separately under income from other sources and quashed the CIT’s Section 263 order.
ITAT Mumbai held that PCIT had no jurisdiction to invoke Section 263 on issues beyond scope of limited scrutiny, setting aside revision order as invalid.
ITAT Ahmedabad upheld PCIT’s revision under Section 263 because AO wrongly allowed a cumulative Rs.28.72 crore foreign exchange loss on ECB repayment in one year. Tribunal ruled that under ICDS-VI and AS-11, forex differences must be recognized annually, making AO’s failure to verify compliance erroneous.
ITAT Bangalore ruled that excess stock admitted during a survey is taxed as business income only if a direct nexus to regular business is proven; otherwise, it’s taxed as undisclosed income under Section 115BBE. The verdict split across two assessment years based on whether the disclosure was linked to sales or simply admitted as unexplained.
ITAT Surat dismissed Revenue’s appeal, holding that once substantive additions related to payments made by assessee were upheld by Tribunal and CIT(A) in cases of receiving parties, corresponding protective additions against assessee must be deleted.
The ITAT Ahmedabad deleted a Rs.7.46 lakh disallowance of employees’ PF contribution, ruling that payment made on the next working day is timely when the statutory due date falls on a Sunday. The ruling applied Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, confirming that the delay was valid and unavoidable.
The ITAT Mumbai quashed a revisionary order under Section 263, ruling that the Assessing Officer’s detailed scrutiny into the Rs.124 crore business loss was adequate.2 The Tribunal confirmed that when an AO conducts proper inquiries, the order is not “erroneous” and cannot be subject to revision merely because the PCIT disagrees.
The ITAT allowed the assessee’s appeal, holding that the PCIT’s order under Section 263 was unsustainable because it failed to cite any specific instance where the AO neglected to verify the alleged fictitious loan transaction. For Section 263 to apply, both the error in the assessment and prejudice to the revenue must be proven, which the PCIT did not demonstrate.
