Income Tax : Explore the necessity of issuing notices under Section 263 post the Faceless Assessment Scheme introduction. Analyze the schemes e...
Income Tax : Explore remedies for taxpayers under the Income Tax Act, 1961, comparing appeals & revisions. Understand procedures, limitations &...
Income Tax : Explore Sections 207 to 219 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, covering Advance Tax provisions, due dates, and in-depth analysis. Unders...
Income Tax : Explore the intricacies of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Learn how it rectifies erroneous orders and safeguards revenue...
Income Tax : Whether payment to shareholders out of sale proceeds of a property belonging to the company, to end dispute amongst the shareholde...
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 Jaipur quashes PCIT order in Yesh Dagas case, citing violation of natural justice principles. Key points of the judgment and ...
Income Tax : PCIT Vs Farmson Pharmaceuticals Gujarat Pvt Ltd (Gujarat High Court): Reassessment cannot be solely based on a reevaluation of exi...
Income Tax : Once an assessment has been finalized for a particular year, reassessment cannot be justified merely due to subsequent procedural ...
Income Tax : Gujarat High Court allows income tax deduction for payment clearing mortgage, dismissing Revenue’s appeal under section 263. Ful...
Income Tax : Detailed analysis of the ITAT Kolkata ruling on Shringar Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT, highlighting key arguments, legal precedents...
Held that revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of PCIT cannot be invoked for initiation of penalty proceedings without holding that the assessment order passed by the AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
In the absence of any specific finding of PCIT with respect to enquiries which should have been made, section 263 order not justified
PCIT was of the view that the difference of Rs.25 lakhs in view of the guideline value fixed by Stamp Valuation Authority at Rs.3.50 crores is to be accepted and added to the return of income of the assessee. We are of the view that this is highly debatable issue and even the tolerance limit of 10% is to be considered or not is again a debate.
Dhanalakshmi Mills Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai) Admittedly, the Assessing Officer has caused necessary inquiries with regard to computation of long term capital gain derived transfer of property and has computed capital gain by taking into account cost of acquisition claimed by the assessee without disturbing consideration received from transfer of property, even though, there […]
Sunita Goyal Vs PCIT (ITAT Chandigarh) In the absence of any evidence or fact rebutting the claim of the assessee, the order passed after due enquiries as per record by the AO cannot be set aside on mere inferences and presumptions. The suspicions of the ld. PCIT cannot be the basis for setting aside a […]
Sopan Developers Vs PCIT (ITAT Rajkot) Amendment for charging the tax on the notional rent with respect to the properties held as stock in trade was applicable from the assessment year 2018-19 and subsequent assessment year. As such, the amended provision is not applicable for the year under consideration. Thus the question of calculating the […]
Held that for invoking revisionary power u/s 263 it is necessary to point out the error in the order and that too such an error should be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue
Held that Commissioner should not simply relegate the point that the assessment order is erroneous to the AO. The Commissioner, after analyzing the record, ought to have recorded a categorical finding and provided valid reasons as to how the assessment order is erroneous. Revision unsustainable
Held that an inquiry made by the AO, considered inadequate by the Commissioner of Income Tax, cannot make the order of the Assessing Officer erroneous. Thus, the Commissioner of Income Tax by invoking revisionary powers u/s. 263 cannot impose his own understanding of the extent of inquiry.
Held that in case there are two possible views and the AO has taken one of the possible views, no action to exercise powers of revision can arise.
