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 : ITAT held an assessment passed after the taxpayer's death was invalid in law, quashed the order, and treated all remaining issues ...
Income Tax : ITAT deleted additions after finding the AO relied only on ACB information without independent inquiry or supporting evidence. ITA...
Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata held that a loan received by a company that was not a shareholder of the lender could not be taxed as deemed dividend...
Income Tax : The Court held that Section 263 could not be invoked where the AO had made inquiries and accepted the assessee's explanation....
Income Tax : The Court held that Section 263 could not be invoked where the AO had raised queries, examined replies and completed the assessmen...
Relying on binding Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the Tribunal set aside the revisionary order as legally invalid because the PCIT failed to bring the legal heir on record before passing the order. The ruling firmly establishes that an income tax order passed against a dead person is a nullity and cannot be enforced.
The ITAT Ahmedabad set aside the PCIT’s revisionary order under Section 263, ruling that the AO’s acceptance of ₹12.18 lakh exempt LTCG on Kushal Tradelink shares was based on a detailed inquiry and a plausible view. The Tribunal held that revision is invalid when the AO conducts due diligence, finds no adverse material to link the assessee to price rigging, and takes a possible view on the evidence.
ITAT Mumbai held that passing of order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act by PCIT without considering submissions filed by the assessee amounts to non-speaking order. Accordingly, matter is remitted back to PCIT to consider the submissions and pass a speaking order.
The ITAT confirmed the revision, ruling the AO’s failure to restrict the deduction to the DSIR-approved amount in Form 3CL was an error contrary to the amended law, causing prejudice to the revenue. Post-2016 amendments make this verification mandatory.
The ITAT Chandigarh quashed a revision, holding that when the Assessing Officer (AO) conducts a proper enquiry, the PCIT cannot substitute their judgment merely because they desire a deeper verification. The ruling establishes that inadequate enquiry is distinct from lack of enquiry, and only the latter justifies revision.
The ITAT Raipur ruled that compensation received for land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, is exempt from income tax under Section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act. This decision confirms the principle of uniform tax relief for all land-losers, irrespective of the acquiring statute, following the Supreme Court’s Tarsem Singh ruling.
ITAT Mumbai held that revisionary proceeding under section 263 of the Income Tax Act not justifiable when AO has taken most plausible view. Accordingly, appeal is allowed to that extent.
ITAT Ranchi quashes PCIT’s Section 263 order against a Co-operative Society (Chotanagpur Catholic Mission). Rules 80P deduction cannot be denied after AO’s thorough verification.
Pune ITAT set aside a CIT(E) revision against PYC Gymkhana, ruling the AO’s view was plausible since business receipts were below the 20% limit in Section 2(15) Proviso (ii).
Pune ITAT set aside a PCIT’s Section 263 revisionary order against Ravindra Chavan, ruling the “Hear the Other Side” rule was breached by relying on un-confronted material.
