Income Tax

Legal expenses claim of Salman Khan allowed in set aside proceedings by revisionary order of CIT u/s 263.

Legal expenses claim of Salman Khan allowed in set aside proceedings by order of Commissioner of Income Tax under Revision u/s 263

The Hindustan Times in 2015, quoting Salim Khan, father of Salman Khan had reported that Bollywood actor had spent more than Rs 25 crore in the 2002 hit-and-run case. It appears that Income Tax Department was also concerned about the legal and professional expenses claimed by Salman Khan as the Commissioner of Income Tax ordered Revision of income tax assessment orders for three years under section 263.

It is notable that under section 263 of the Income tax Act, 1961, the Commissioner of Income tax may examine the record of any proceedings and if he finds that the order passed is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, he may after giving an opportunity of being heard, cancel an assessment made and direct fresh assessment.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 1132 (2017) (02) ITAT

Brief Facts of the Case:
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai had passed the revision orders under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) directing the Assessing Officer to examine the issue relating to legal & professional expenses incurred by the assessee during the AY 2011-12 to 2013-14.

The assessee, had challenged those orders before ITAT.

However, before ITAT it was submitted that pending the appeal, the Assessing Officer in pursuance of the revision orders, had examined the issue in the set aside proceedings and he has allowed the claim of the assessee with respect to expenditure claimed on account of legal & professional expenses.

It was submitted to the ITAT that the in view of the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer giving effect to the revision orders, present appeals had become infructuous.

Observations made by the Tribunal:
The ITAT noticed that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting these appeals since he was not having any grievance in the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer giving effect to the revision order. The Departmental Representative did not object the factual aspects.

Held:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee.
 

Download Full Judgment

Related Article : Salman Khan must not be punished for being Salman Khan Click Here >>

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

Non-deduction of TDS does not make transaction as unexplained in the hands of deductee – ITAT

Mere non-deduction of TDS by the deductor on a transaction does not change the character of the transaction to make…

5 hours ago
  • ICAI

Last date to submit MEF 2026-27 extended to 09.09.2026

ICAI has extended the last date to online submit Multipurpose Empanelment Form (MEF)- 2026-27 from 29th August 2026 to 9th…

8 hours ago
  • Income Tax

Validity of demand u/s 156 for default u/s 115-O, if assessment order u/s 143(3) has Nil demand

Can a demand notice be issued u/s 156 for non-payment of Dividend tax u/s 115-O, when as per assessment order…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

Issue already examined and adjudicated by CIT(Appeals), can’t be reopened on same set of facts

The issue already examined and adjudicated by the quasi-judicial authority, i.e., CIT(Appeals), cannot be reopened on the same set of…

3 days ago
  • Income Tax

TDS can’t be denied for non deposit of tax deducted by the deductor – High Court

One TDS is deducted, credit has to follow, failure of deductor to deposit the amount to the credit of the…

4 days ago
  • Income Tax

Cash withdrawal from bank can’t be taxed u/s 69C as unexplained expenditure – ITAT

Merely because assessee did not explain purpose of cash withdrawal from bank, it can not be taxed u/s 69C as…

4 days ago