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...
ACIT Vs. M/s. Sutures India Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Bangalore)- ITAT Slams CIT(A) for violation of Judicial Discipline by taking contradictory view on issue already confirmed on merit by it and CIT (Appeals) have no jurisdiction to take any decision on issue which is already been decided by CIT under Section 263.
Where original assessment order was subjected to revision under section 263, interest under section 234B would be charged till completion of assessment under section 143(3) read with section 263.
Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. Vs CIT-IV (ITAT Pune) Now, coming to the aspect of book profits which was considered by the Commissioner and the order of the Assessing Officer was held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In this regard, it may be pointed out that the case of assessee […]
Section 263 confers sufficient powers upon the Commissioner to decide all issues of law, after recording its satisfaction that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.
Before Passing An Order Under Section 263 Principal Commissioner Or Commissioner Of Income Tax Has To Make His/Her Own Enquiry
A bare reading of sections 54 and 54F of the Act nowhere states that the surplus remaining after claiming deduction under section 54/54F on account of construction of house property undertaken in a year, would not be allowed set off against long-term capital gain earned in the succeeding year.
Opportunity of being heard is little more than serving a notice on assessee. It is not an empty formality. Without giving a proper opportunity to assessee, revision proceedings u/s. 263 cannot be finalized as the provisions of Section 263 mandates that the CIT may pass such orders after giving an opportunity of being heard. Since […]
In a major relief to the Ernst & Young Pvt Ltd (EY), the Kolkata bench of the ITAT confirmed the original assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer allowing deduction under sections 10A and 10AA of the Income Tax Act to the Company without set off of loss of taxable unit.
Where AO allowed set off of interest earned on fixed deposits against interest payable on borrowings then such allowance was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, therefore, CIT rightly invoked revisionary jurisdiction.
Uncontrovertedly, necessary details/reply to the questionnaire were filed/produced by the assessee and the same were examined by the Assessing Officer, therefore, it is not a case of lack of enquiry by the Assessing Officer
