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 ...
Co-operative society received/earned interest on deposits with the co-operative bank was eligible for claim of deduction under section 80(2)(d).
Delhi High Court accepts returned income for 12 years as limitation period for fresh assessment order expires. Details of Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd vs PCIT case.
Karnataka High Court held that reassessment proceedings cannot be in the nature of review and accordingly, the material as has come to light in the assessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2008- 2009 cannot be a sufficient ground to resort to reassessment proceedings.
ITAT Kolkata held that revisionary proceedings u/s. 263 initiated in the name of non-existent entity, despite the fact that private limited company was converted into LLP and the conversion was brought to the knowledge of AO, is void ab initio and invalid.
While granting relief to NTPC, the proceeding under Section 263 could not be initiated on account of income received from the fly ash and cenosphere as in view of the notification of the Government the fly ash fund transferred to NTPC Ltd.
ITAT Delhi while quashing the revisionary order passed by the Ld. Pr.CIT held that, mere non-deposit in the capital gains scheme account cannot be the basis to deny deduction u/s 54/54F when the LTCG amount had duly been reinvested within the time allowed under 54(1) and that a hyper-technical/perfectionists point of view cannot the basis to assume revisionary jurisdiction.
Explore the Kerala High Court judgment upholding Revision Proceedings to correct the wrong Rate of Tax, impacting the appellant’s appeal under the Income Tax Act
Delhi High Court held that revisionary power under section 263 of the Income Tax Act can be invoked only in case of no enquiry. The revisionary power cannot be invoked in case of inadequate enquiry.
In a recent case, ITAT Guwahati ruled on ‘Income other than business/profession mismatch,’ setting aside the assessment order. Detailed analysis of the decision.
ITAT Chandigarh held that initiation of reassessment proceeding merely on the fact that AO has not carried out independent enquiries of confirmations from the creditors, without pointing out any deficiency or inaccuracy, cannot be a base to hold that order was erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, reassessment unsustainable.
