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...
M/s Frick India Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) – There was a composite agreement titled as ‘intellectual property license and non compete agreement’ vide which several valuable rights including the right to use the trademark, technical know-how including right to export to 30 countries have been granted over a long period of ten years to the assessee, which gave rise to a benefit of enduring nature. However, the AO has allowed the same as revenue expenditure without application of mind and without keeping in view the stand taken in earlier years by the AO which was also confirmed by the CIT(A) on the very same facts.
The assessee, a hotel, incurred expenditure on acquiring licenses and permissions from various government bodies. This was classified as “goodwill” in the books and depreciation was claimed on the ground that it was an “intangible asset” u/s 32(1)(ii). The AO allowed the claim. The CIT passed an order u/s 263 in which he took the view that the AO had not applied his mind to the issue and that the order was “erroneous & prejudicial to the interests of the revenue”. The CIT set aside the assessment order and directed the AO to pass a fresh order. On appeal by the assessee, HELD allowing the appeal: (i) The CIT had not recorded any finding to show how the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Merely because the AO had not examined whether the approvals / registrations etc. amounted to intangible assets and had not applied his mind to the examination and verification of the allowability of depreciation on intangible assets did not mean that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. It was not the case of the CIT that depreciation was not allowable on such items ofintangible assets; (ii) An authority exercising revisional power cannot direct the lower authority to complete the assessment in particular manner. UOI vs. Tata Engineering AIR 1998 SC 287 followed; (iii) On merits, approvals/registrations etc amount to “intangible assets” and entitled to depreciation u/s 32(1) (ii).
Where the Assessing Officer has not carried out necessary enquiry which ought to have been carried out for allowing deduction to the assessee under section 40(b), the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and CIT has rightly invoked the provisions of section 263.
Where an order passed by the Assessing Officer is subject to an appeal that has been filed, the power of the Commissioner to invoke his revisional jurisdiction under section 263 can only extend to such matters which have not been considered and decided in the appeal.
Only in the cases where the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and not prejudicial to the interest of the assessee can be reopened under section 263 and the assessee is not eligible to claim any new benefit in the assessment proceedings pursuant to section 263.
Under sec.68, when an amount is found to be credited in the books of the assessee, he has to prove the identity of creditor, his creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions. No doubt, the source of income is there with the creditors but it does not conclusively prove that the amount has come from that source.
CIT revised the order u/s 263 to include the sum of Rs.1,75,32,600/- in the total income of the assessee under Sec.41(1) of the Income Tax Act on the ground that there had been a complete cessation of liability in regard to this amount in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1982-83 – ITAT confirmed the order – held that – when the Assessing Officer took a possible view
Explore the intricacies of Section 263 under the Income Tax Act with the Supreme Court’s perspective in Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs. Max India Limited (2007) 295 ITR 282. The retrospective amendment in 2005, addressing the complexities of Section 80HHC, does not trigger Section 263. The court emphasizes the existence of two plausible views on ‘profits’ at the time of the Commissioner’s order in 1997. Uncover the nuanced interpretation of ‘prejudicial to the interests of the revenue’ and the significance of the 2005 amendment in this insightful judgment.
