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...
The facts in the case before Hon’ble High Court (supra) are identical to the facts in hand because the assessment order was passed by the AO as per the discussion with CIT and as per the office note dt. 28/12/2006 then the subsequent CIT cannot revise the assessment order. In view of the above discussion, we hold that when the AO has conducted an enquiry and taken a possible view then while exercising the jurisdiction u/s 263, the CIT cannot take a different view.
Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. DCIT (Delhi HC)- We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. The order passed under Section 263 became final. Learned Commissioner while exercising the powers under Section 263 has decided the issue himself and directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute the income on the basis of his decision. He has not relegated the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for re- adjudication.
CIT Vs. Software Consultants (Delhi High Court)- For exercise of power under Section 263 of the Act, it is mandatory that the order passed by the Assessing Officer should be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In the present case, the Assessing Officer did not make any addition for the reasons recorded at the time of issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act.
CIT Vs. Galileo India Pvt Ltd (Delhi HC) – Rule 8D has been held to be prospective in nature and applicable from assessment year 2008-09 by this Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT, New Delhi in ITA No.687/2009 dated 18.11.2011. However, in the said decision it has been observed that direct and indirect expenses have to be disallowed under Section 14A, when an assessee earns exempt income.
DCIT v. Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd (ITAT Delhi)- The Delhi Tribunal in this case has held that interest for deferment of advance tax is leviable under Section 234C of the Act where there is a shortfall in payment of advance tax while computing ‘book profit’ under the existing MAT provision under Section 115JB of the Act.
. These three pertain to the same assessee. While in one appeal, the assessee has challenged correctness of the revision order dated 19th October 2007, passed by the learned CIT under section 263 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2003-04, the remaining two appeals are cross appeals against CIT(A)’s appellate order in the matter of assessment framed to give effect to learned CIT’s revision order. As these appeals involve somewhat interconnected issues arising out of common set of facts and as these three appeals were heard together, all the three appeals are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order.
SBS Clothing (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) – In this case, there was 5-fold increase on account of payment of salary when there was no substantial increase in the turnover. The AO vide note dated 25.10.2007 had asked for reasons for exorbitant rise in salary to which assessee filed letter dated 19.11.2003 replied that the same was because of payment made to job workers in the earlier years whereas in the current year job workers had been taken on salary basis and salary had been paid to them.
Jyoti Traders Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai )- In our view the conditions precedent for passing an order u/s.142(2A) of the Act directing the Assessee to get its account audited by a special auditor viz., the satisfaction of the AO having regard to the nature and complexity of the accounts of the assessee and the interest of the revenue, that is necessary get the assessee’s account audited by a special auditor is not fulfilled in the present case and therefore the reference to special audit is held to be invalid.
Hemant Mangaldas Bhanushali Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)- The main ground on which the CIT exercised jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act, was the failure on the part of the Assessing Officer to make enquiries with regard to the applicability of the provisions of section 194C to the payments made by the assessee to other truck owners in the course of his business of transportation of cargo and the consequent dis-allowance that could be made under the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In para 3.1 of the impugned order of the CIT, the CIT has concluded that the order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue because of the lack of enquiry and application of mind by the Assessing Officer on the above aspect.
Jai Mica Supply Co Pvt Ltd Vs CIT (Kolkata High Court)- We do not find any substance in the contention of Mr. Khaitan that there were conflicting views on this point when the notice under Section 263 of the Act was issued.
