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 Kolkata held that in terms of block assessment under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, reopening of unabated assessment without any incriminating material found with respect to concerned assessment year is impermissible in law.
ITAT Pune held that penalty under section 271(1)(c)/ 271AAB of the Income Tax Act imposable even in case of voluntary disclosure or declaration or surrender per se of income. Accordingly, appeal filed by revenue allowed.
Allahabad High Court held that no substantial question of law arise since Tribunal after thorough scrutiny concluded that invocation of revisionary proceedings u/s. 263 by PCIT was without any base. Thus, appeal filed by revenue dismissed.
Delhi High Court held that the assessee was not afforded an opportunity to counter the allegation that it was a conduit company without any substance. Thus, the appeal filed by the revenue dismissed.
Allahabad High Court held that appeal u/s. 260A of the Income Tax Act is not sustainable since there is no perversity in finding of the Tribunal and accordingly there exists no substantial question of law. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
PCIT was of the view that mere process of compression of natural gas cannot be considered to be a manufacturing activity for the purpose of claim of additional depreciation.
ITAT Kolkata held that treating purchases from concern as bogus merely because for another year purchases from the said concern were treated by AO as bogus is not justified since in relevant year AO duly treated the purchases as genuine.
The assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act was passed on 03-07-2015 determining total income of Rs. 11,70,590/-. Thereafter, reassessment proceedings initiated and order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B was passed on 28-032022 by accepting the returned income.
Madras High Court held that issue relating to pre-closure premium was already considered and allowed by the assessing authority. Thus, invocation of revisionary power u/s. 263 for mere disagreement with the view of the assessing authority is unjustified in law.
The First Appellate Authority, therefore, allowed the appeal of the appellant/assessee by relying on the remand report and finding that the consequential order passed by the Assessing Authority could not be legally sustained.
