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...
The assessee has not claimed depreciation on goodwill it acquired commercial rights to sell products under the trade name and paid consideration in dispute for acquiring marketing and territorial rights to sell through dealers and distributors i.e. the network created by the seller for sale in India. Under the agreement. It become entitled to use of infrastructure developed by the seller. Rights were acquired since 1.4.1998 and these rights have all along been treated as an asset entitled to depreciation and depreciation was actually allowed in the past.
ITO V/s. DG Housing Projects Ltd. In the present case, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are correct as the CIT has not gone into and has not given any reason for observing that the order passed by the AO was erroneous. The finding recorded by the CIT is that order passed by the AO may be erroneous.
The facts in the case before Hon’ble High Court (supra) are identical to the facts in hand because the assessment order was passed by the AO as per the discussion with CIT and as per the office note dt. 28/12/2006 then the subsequent CIT cannot revise the assessment order. In view of the above discussion, we hold that when the AO has conducted an enquiry and taken a possible view then while exercising the jurisdiction u/s 263, the CIT cannot take a different view.
Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. DCIT (Delhi HC)- We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. The order passed under Section 263 became final. Learned Commissioner while exercising the powers under Section 263 has decided the issue himself and directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute the income on the basis of his decision. He has not relegated the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for re- adjudication.
CIT Vs. Software Consultants (Delhi High Court)- For exercise of power under Section 263 of the Act, it is mandatory that the order passed by the Assessing Officer should be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In the present case, the Assessing Officer did not make any addition for the reasons recorded at the time of issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act.
CIT Vs. Galileo India Pvt Ltd (Delhi HC) – Rule 8D has been held to be prospective in nature and applicable from assessment year 2008-09 by this Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT, New Delhi in ITA No.687/2009 dated 18.11.2011. However, in the said decision it has been observed that direct and indirect expenses have to be disallowed under Section 14A, when an assessee earns exempt income.
DCIT v. Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd (ITAT Delhi)- The Delhi Tribunal in this case has held that interest for deferment of advance tax is leviable under Section 234C of the Act where there is a shortfall in payment of advance tax while computing ‘book profit’ under the existing MAT provision under Section 115JB of the Act.
. These three pertain to the same assessee. While in one appeal, the assessee has challenged correctness of the revision order dated 19th October 2007, passed by the learned CIT under section 263 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2003-04, the remaining two appeals are cross appeals against CIT(A)’s appellate order in the matter of assessment framed to give effect to learned CIT’s revision order. As these appeals involve somewhat interconnected issues arising out of common set of facts and as these three appeals were heard together, all the three appeals are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order.
SBS Clothing (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) – In this case, there was 5-fold increase on account of payment of salary when there was no substantial increase in the turnover. The AO vide note dated 25.10.2007 had asked for reasons for exorbitant rise in salary to which assessee filed letter dated 19.11.2003 replied that the same was because of payment made to job workers in the earlier years whereas in the current year job workers had been taken on salary basis and salary had been paid to them.
Jyoti Traders Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai )- In our view the conditions precedent for passing an order u/s.142(2A) of the Act directing the Assessee to get its account audited by a special auditor viz., the satisfaction of the AO having regard to the nature and complexity of the accounts of the assessee and the interest of the revenue, that is necessary get the assessee’s account audited by a special auditor is not fulfilled in the present case and therefore the reference to special audit is held to be invalid.
