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...
Revision under section 263 by PCIT was not justified as all the four issues questioned by PCIT were thoroughly examined by AO during the assessment proceedings, and after considering relevant facts and explanations furnished by assessee had chosen to accept the claim of the assessee and hence, the same could not be termed as non consideration of issues or AO had failed to carry out required enquiries, which ought to have been carried out in accordance with law. Thus, the assessment order passed by AO was neither erroneous, nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue
Swastik Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. CIT (ITAT Indore) The basis of exercising of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act as per Ld. Pr. CIT is that transfer pricing related issues were not examined by the A.O. since the transaction carried out by the assessee are covered under specific domestic transactions. The contention […]
M/s. Charbhuja Marmo (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITAT Delhi) Invalid Reassessment Proceedings can not be Revised Under Section 263 by PCIT It is well settled Law that since re-assessment proceedings are invalid and bad in law, therefore, such proceedings could not be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. It is also well […]
The question that arises for consideration is where there is no new material brought on record by the Assessing subsequent to completion of original proceedings u/s 143(3) and where the matter was duly examined during the original assessment proceedings, whether the Assessing officer can still acquire jurisdiction by exercising powers u/s 147 of the Act.
Hon’ble Supreme Court had categorically held that the twin conditions are to be satisfied cumulatively by the ld CIT before invoking his jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act viz (i) order of the AO should be erroneous and (ii) it should be prejuducial to the interests of the revenue
Brahma Center Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITAT Delhi) The Mumbai Bench of Tribunal while noticing the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd, 332 ITR 167 and the case of Nagesh knitwear Pvt. Ltd., 355 ITR 135 observed that the Explanation-2 to section 263 inserted by Finance […]
While passing the assessment order AO had followed the permissible view in law which could not be said to be ‘unsustainable in law’. Therefore, the jurisdictional facts for usurping the jurisdiction u/s 263, being absent, the action of CIT to exercise revisional jurisdiction was without jurisdiction and all subsequent actions were ‘null’ in the eyes of law.
The Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax wants the Assessing officer to look into various other issues of the assessee which were not covered within the purview of the
The issue under consideration is whether Passing of revisionary order against amalgamating company which was not in existence on the date of order is justified in law?
The issue under consideration is whether income from sale of tea manufactured and sold from tea leaves purchased from third parties was from non-agricultural activity and therefore, was not eligible for deduction of 60%?
