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 ...
The Tribunal ruled that revision under Section 263 requires examination of approval granted under Section 153D. Without establishing any defect in such approval, the assessment cannot be termed erroneous. The decision limits arbitrary revision powers.
The ITAT held that revision under Section 263 cannot be invoked where the Assessing Officer has conducted detailed inquiries and adopted a plausible view. The Tribunal ruled that a mere change of opinion by the PCIT does not render the assessment order erroneous or prejudicial.
The issue was whether exemption under Section 54 could be restricted to one property. ITAT held that prior to the 2015 amendment, multiple residential properties were eligible, and full deduction must be allowed.
The Court condoned a 179-day delay and admitted the appeal on questions involving Section 263. It will examine whether the Tribunal erred in quashing revisionary action.
The Tribunal upheld revision under Section 263 after finding that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct enquiry into excess diesel shortage claimed by the assessee. It held that incomplete enquiry makes the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.
ITAT Mumbai held that reassessment initiated without approval from the correct authority under Section 151 is invalid. Since the reassessment itself was void, the revision order under Section 263 could not survive.
The Tribunal examined whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can arise when income is added due to the deeming provision under Section 56(2)(vii)(b). It held that a stamp duty valuation difference alone does not establish concealment, so penalty cannot be sustained
ITAT Delhi held that while selecting the comparables transactions or entities, in case of international transactions, the basis should be one of similarity with the control transactions/entities and mere broad similarity is not sufficient.
The Tribunal ruled that an assessment order passed after DRP directions is still subject to revision under Section 263. It held that there is no statutory bar preventing the Principal Commissioner from revising such orders.
The ITAT held that revisional powers under Section 263 cannot be exercised when the Assessing Officer has already examined the issues during scrutiny. Mere disagreement with the assessment cannot justify revision.
