Income Tax : Understanding the exclusion of time limits during Court stays in assessment proceedings under Finance Bill 2025 for Income Tax ass...
Income Tax : Explore Section 263 of ITA, 1961, and its implications for revising assessment orders with no discussion on certain issues. Judici...
Income Tax : Explore landmark judgments on capital gain tax exemptions under Sections 54 and 54F of the Income Tax Act. Key highlights from ITA...
Income Tax : Understand the differences between appellate powers u/s 251, revisional powers u/s 263, and 264 of the Income Tax Act, and how the...
Income Tax : Explore the necessity of issuing notices under Section 263 post the Faceless Assessment Scheme introduction. Analyze the schemes e...
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 : Delhi ITAT rules Section 56(2)(viib) of the IT Act does not apply to transactions between holding and subsidiary companies, quashi...
Income Tax : Rajasthan High Court held that profits and gains generated by captive consumption of electricity is eligible for deduction under s...
Income Tax : M/s. GRR Holdings is a firm was incorporated on 31.01.2014 with two partners Shri Gaddam Shyam Prasad Reddy & Shri Syed Fayaz Moha...
Income Tax : Calcutta HC dismisses IT appeal against Subhlabh Steels due to ongoing insolvency under IBC, citing SC ruling in Monnet Ispat. Rea...
Income Tax : Delhi High Court held that reopening of an assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act merely on the basis of communication...
Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. Vs CIT-IV (ITAT Pune) Now, coming to the aspect of book profits which was considered by the Commissioner and the order of the Assessing Officer was held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In this regard, it may be pointed out that the case of assessee […]
Section 263 confers sufficient powers upon the Commissioner to decide all issues of law, after recording its satisfaction that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.
Before Passing An Order Under Section 263 Principal Commissioner Or Commissioner Of Income Tax Has To Make His/Her Own Enquiry
A bare reading of sections 54 and 54F of the Act nowhere states that the surplus remaining after claiming deduction under section 54/54F on account of construction of house property undertaken in a year, would not be allowed set off against long-term capital gain earned in the succeeding year.
Opportunity of being heard is little more than serving a notice on assessee. It is not an empty formality. Without giving a proper opportunity to assessee, revision proceedings u/s. 263 cannot be finalized as the provisions of Section 263 mandates that the CIT may pass such orders after giving an opportunity of being heard. Since […]
In a major relief to the Ernst & Young Pvt Ltd (EY), the Kolkata bench of the ITAT confirmed the original assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer allowing deduction under sections 10A and 10AA of the Income Tax Act to the Company without set off of loss of taxable unit.
Where AO allowed set off of interest earned on fixed deposits against interest payable on borrowings then such allowance was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, therefore, CIT rightly invoked revisionary jurisdiction.
Uncontrovertedly, necessary details/reply to the questionnaire were filed/produced by the assessee and the same were examined by the Assessing Officer, therefore, it is not a case of lack of enquiry by the Assessing Officer
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax was trying to substitute a legally permissible view taken by the Id. AO with another view which was not a rational one. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd (supra) has clearly held that revisionary powers u/s.263 of the Act cannot be invoked for substituting a lawful view taken by the Id. Assessing Officer, with another view.
ITAT Mumbai held that CIT cannot revise assessment for making afresh examination of an issue already examined by the AO who has taken one of the possible views because there has been no erroneous order which could ordered to be revised.
