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 ...
Rajasthan High Court held that since reassessment order is distinct and different, the period of limitation for exercising powers u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act would be the date of original assessment order. Thus, entire proceedings barred by limitation.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that non application of mind or wrong assumption of facts or incorrect application of law by the A.O. will make the order erroneous and pre-judicial to the interest of revenue. Thus, as order passed without adequate inquiry, revision u/s. 263 justified.
ITAT Mumbai held that PCIT grossly erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act as assessment order has been framed in the name of a non-existing assessee.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that invocation of section 263 by PCIT unjustified due lack of sufficient evidence to support claim that the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
ITAT Chennai held that the assessee is a cottage industry and the entire income is attributable to business of the society and hence eligible to claim Interest earned on deposit also as deduction U/s.80P(2)(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act.
Delhi High Court held that department need to comply with the order of the Tribunal in passing a fresh assessment order within the time limit prescribed under section 153(3) of the Income Tax Act. Thus, notices initiating fresh assessment set aside.
ITAT Chennai held that invoking the revisionary powers under section 263 of the Income Tax Act without giving any reasoning for setting aside the assessment order and merely directing AO verification without any basis is unjustifiable.
Delhi High Court held that Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) is liable to be paid by the company which declares, distributes or pays the same. Petitioner, herein, has received interest income from Non-convertible debentures and accordingly cannot be subject to DDT.
Assessee-partnership firm had filed its income tax return declaring income. The case was selected for limited scrutiny, focusing on the issues such as investment in immovable property and share capital/other capital.
Calcutta HC dismisses appeal by revenue, upholds ITAT decision quashing PCIT order under Section 263 on MAT credit and doubtful debts for Eastern Coalfields Ltd.