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 : ITAT held an assessment passed after the taxpayer's death was invalid in law, quashed the order, and treated all remaining issues ...
Income Tax : ITAT deleted additions after finding the AO relied only on ACB information without independent inquiry or supporting evidence. ITA...
Income Tax : ITAT Kolkata held that a loan received by a company that was not a shareholder of the lender could not be taxed as deemed dividend...
Income Tax : The Court held that Section 263 could not be invoked where the AO had made inquiries and accepted the assessee's explanation....
Income Tax : The Court held that Section 263 could not be invoked where the AO had raised queries, examined replies and completed the assessmen...
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.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained cash credit set aside as no additions made in the hands of investors confirms genuineness of investor and hence investment cannot be stated as bogus in hands of company.
Delhi High Court held that revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act justified in absence of any effective inquiry and total non-application of mind by AO. Accordingly, order passed by AO erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue.
Analysis of ITAT Kolkata’s ruling in Usha Devi Modi vs ITO on Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, addressing capital gains on penny stocks and revisionary jurisdiction.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that Rule 2BBB of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 was introduced only from AY 2015-16 and the same is not applicable for AY 2014-15. Thus denial of exemption u/s. 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Income Tax Act unjustified.
ITAT Cochin rules AO’s assessment must be both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue for S.263 proceedings. Delay condoned; appeal allowed for Kool Home Builders.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that revision u/s. 263 quashed as AO already disallowed the claim of depreciation while framing assessment and assessed income at NIL due to proper application of funds.
The assessee filed the return of income declaring a total income of Rs. Nil. However, AO completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) read with Section 144B determining the assessed income at Rs. 3,37,97,789/-.
Madras High Court held that issuance of notice in the name of assessee unjustified as Official Assignee has taken charge of the entire estate of the original assessee. Once the assets are taken over by official assignee the notice issued to dead person is non est in law.
