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 ...
ITAT Lucknow set aside a PCIT’s revisional order under Section 263, ruling it was void due to a violation of natural justice. The PCIT used external adverse material (alleging shell company purchases) against the assessee without providing a chance for rebuttal or considering evidence already filed, making the order invalid.
The ITAT ruled that the PCIT wrongly invoked Section 263 by relying on unverified external information (e.g., SEBI data and license suspension claims) to label purchases as bogus, without providing this information to the assessee for rebuttal. The tribunal deleted the revisionary order, confirming that the PCIT acted illegally by presuming facts and ignoring the documentary proof of purchase genuineness.
The Ahmedabad ITAT has struck down reassessment orders against Arpanbhai Virambhai Desai, holding that the AO’s reliance solely on an ACB disproportionate assets report without independent application of mind or specifying escaped income is “borrowed satisfaction,” invalidating the Section 147 jurisdiction.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that the PCIT rightly invoked revisional powers under Section 263 as the assessment order showed lack of proper inquiry, upholding the revision.
The ITAT Agra set aside the addition of ₹34.45 crore under Section 41(1) against Ginni Filaments, ruling that the evidence (creditor confirmations, invoices, and payment proof) must first be verified by the AO.
ITAT Kolkata set aside the revisionary order, finding the PCITs basis—that no supporting documents for the share LTCG were on record—was factually incorrect. The Tribunal ruled that the AO had taken a plausible view after due inquiry, and the PCIT cannot use Section 263 to substitute his own view for the AOs.
The ITAT dismissed an assessee’s quantum appeal, confirming that a ₹10.42 Cr write-off for decommissioned windmills was a capital loss, not a revenue deduction. Since the trust offered this as business income, the ITAT held the only permissible treatment was adjustment in the block of assets.
The ITAT set aside the PCIT’s revision order, confirming that the sale of an entire residential building floor-by-floor to different buyers still constitutes the sale of one single house property for Section 54 claim purposes. Since the AO had already examined the capital gains claim in detail, the assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the Revenue, invalidating the Section 263 proceedings.
The Tribunal directed the PCIT to reconsider a u/s 263 order, emphasizing that the PCIT is legally bound to examine and deal with the assessee’s explanations, such as increased sales due to an early festival season. The key takeaway is that merely issuing a notice is insufficient; the PCIT’s final order must be a speaking order that addresses all submissions.
The ITAT set aside the PCIT’s revision order, confirming that the revisional power under Section 263 cannot be invoked merely to conduct a deeper inquiry or change a view previously taken by the AO. Since the AO had specifically examined and verified the share’s Fair Market Value (FMV) during the original scrutiny, the assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the Revenue.
