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 Ahmedabad held that addition u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act is liable to be set aside since advance was received was merely recorded as journal entry and no sum was received by the assessee. Thus, appeal allowed.
ITAT Mumbai quashes PCIT’s Section 263 revision order, ruling AO had duly examined filing fee expenditure for share capital increase in original assessment, thus no error.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that AO allowed the deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(v) of the Income Tax Act without adequate inquire. Accordingly, revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 rightly invoked as order passed by AO was erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked as AO exercised a plausible and legally valid view and revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely because PCIT holds a different view.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the entire proceedings under Section 263 of the Act were initiated and completed by the PCIT within a period of only 12 days without pointing out reason for lack of enquiry unjustified. Accordingly, matter restored back.
The securities were treated as stock-in-trade in the hands of assessee. The amount received by assessee on the sale of the securities was considered for computing its business income.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that invocation of revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act merely taking second opinion unjustified. Further, view taken by AO cannot be set aside or deferred as per provisions of section 263.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unsecured loan sustained as creditworthiness of the lender not proved. Accordingly, ground raised by the assessee dismissed.
Once CESTAT had given a findings that the purchases in question were not bogus, then, additions proposed to be made on the basis of show-cause notice from Central Excise Directorate had no basis which the same could be sustained.
ITAT Delhi held that error of bringing an amount of Rs.12,10,692/- to tax instead of the undisclosed amount of Rs.27,00,00,000/- is assessment made without proper enquiry and hence assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue so revision order u/s. 263 sustained.
