Tag: cit revision 263
Lack of significant discussion of every argument by ITAT does not constitute a substantial question of law – High Court upheld revision u/s 263 ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3092 (2019) (07) HC The assessee had appealed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) alleging …
Revision u/s 263 upheld as AO failed to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) where assessee increased income in revised return filed u/s 148 ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3091 (2019) (07) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties:CIT v. Bhikaji Dadabhai and Co. 42 ITR 123ACIT vs. …
Notice u/s 263 issued by AO was held valid when notice itself stated that PCIT directed its issuance and AO signed it merely in his ministerial capacity ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3081 (2019) (07) HC Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties:CIT Vs. Amitabh Bachchan, (2016) 384 …
CIT cannot direct AO u/s 263 to decide whether the findings recorded are erroneous without his own clear finding that the order is erroneous and how that is so. ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3066 (2019) (07) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties:Contimeters Electrical Pvt. Ltd. …
No Revision u/s 263 when assessment order was void and did not exist in law for not following procedure laid down by Supreme Court in GKN Drivesshaft ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 3049 (2019) (07) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties: CIT Vs. VSNL (2012) …
Revision u/s 263 ordered for dropping penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) set aside as AO took a view by adopting a plausible view ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 3028 (2019) (06) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties: MAK Data Pvt. ltd. Vs. CIT (2013) 358 ITR …
Revision u/s 263 quashed as AO in view the legal position made a conscious decision holding that section 2(22)(e) was not applicable to the case. ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2987 (2019) (06) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties: Pradip Kumar Malhotra v CIT (2011) …
Inadequate enquiry leading to assumption of incorrect facts makes the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue – ITAT upheld the Revision order passed u/s 263 ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2934 (2019) (05) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties Gee Vee …
Limited scrutiny order passed by AO was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of Revenue as enquiries were focused and limited – ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2902 (2019) (05) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties Malabar Industrial Co Ltd Vs. CIT’ (2008) …
Difference in Tribunal and non jurisdictional High Court amounts to two opposite views despite that decision of High Court rendered after ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2884 (2019) (04) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties Gouli Mahadevappa vs. ITO 356 ITR 90 (Karn) Prakash …
