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 ...
ITAT Delhi’s decision regarding applicability of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) to companies before April 1, 2017 in case of Rhythm Polymers Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT.
The ITAT Chennai rules that an assessment order passed without proper examination of evidence can be deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.
Learn how the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal restricted the jurisdiction of Section 263 regarding issues not forming part of a limited scrutiny assessment in the case of Aggarwal Promoters Vs PCIT.
Explore the Sanjeev Khemka vs PCIT case, addressing limited scrutiny, jurisdiction, and errors under Section 263 – ITAT Kolkata decision.
In CIT Vs Padmavathi, Madras High Court held that Section 263 cannot be invoked merely because guideline value was higher than sale consideration shown in conveyance deed
ITAT Mumbai held that order passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act by merely remitting the matter back to AO without giving a finding that profit declared by assessee is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue is liable to be set-aside.
ITAT Delhi held that invocation of revisionary power u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as Assessing Officer duly carried out all the inquiry before passing assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Pune rules that assessment under limited scrutiny cannot exceed its prescribed scope, preventing the use of revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Kolkata held that exercising revisionary proceedings u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act purely on facts which are verifiable from records of the assessee is not justifiable and hence liable to be quashed.
ITAT Chennai held that the termination of the call option merely relinquishes the right of to buy shares, however, there is no element of non-compete obligation inherent in the agreement and hence provisions of Section 28(va) of the Income Tax Act cannot be triggered.
