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 Bangalore quashed a Section 263 revision order concerning a Section 54F deduction, citing insufficient inquiry by Assessing Officer and lack of adequate opportunity for taxpayer.
ITAT Delhi held that offshore supply of equipment revenue couldn’t be taxed in India. Thus, once it is not assessable even under the normal provisions, section 44BBB would also not apply. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
Mumbai ITAT dismisses PCIT’s Section 263 order against Kisan Agro Mart, ruling a presumed 3% commission on accommodation entries was based on surmises, lacking evidence.
ITAT Delhi held that revision under section 263 of the Income Tax Act not justified as PCIT failed to demonstrate that assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, revision order quashed.
The Karnataka High Court upheld revision proceedings in the PCIT v. TE Connectivity India Pvt. Ltd. case, ruling that the absence of a detailed order on commission payments/discounts in the original assessment rendered it erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The court emphasized the need for explicit findings.
The Madras High Court has directed the Commissioner of Income Tax to grant a personal hearing and dispose of an appeal filed by Vadivelu Anbazhagan concerning an income tax demand of Rs. 8 lakh. The appeal for Assessment Year 2016-17 has been pending for over three years.
Chhattisgarh High Court voids Section 263 revision order against Shilphy Steels, ruling it invalid due to lack of reasonable hearing opportunity for the assessee.
ITAT Jaipur held that newly inserted Explanation 2(a) to Sec. 263 does not give unfettered powers to Commissioner to revise each order. Held that revisionary proceeding u/s. 263 not justified as order not erroneous or prejudicial to interest of revenue.
The Petitioner prayed for a direction upon the respondents not to proceed further on the basis of the notice u/s. 148 of the Act of 1961 and drop the proceedings after considering the objection dated 21.02.2022. Petitioner also prayed for an interim stay of the impugned notice.
Since the notice was issued under Section 148 in the name of a non-existing entity, despite the department having been intimated about the amalgamation much earlier, the impugned notice under Section 148 was null and void. Consequently, the reassessment order passed based on this invalid notice was quashed.
