• Follow
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com   

Income Tax Case Laws - Section: 263

Home Case Index Income Tax Sections List
Cases for Section: 263
Showing 1 to 15 of 2305 Records

2016 (4) TMI 570 - ITAT BANGALORE

M/s. United Breweries (Holdings) Ltd. (Successor to UB Global Corporation Ltd. on account of amalgamation) Versus Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore

MAT computation - Excess deduction u/s 80HHC without setting off losses incurred by the assessee on export of trading goods - revision u/s 263 - Held that - Computing MAT liability under the provisions of sec.115JB, deduction u/s 80HHC shall be allowed after setting off losses suffered on export of trading goods. Therefore, there was no issue on the point of allowing deduction at 100 instead of 30 while computing MAT liability u/s 115JB. There is no quarrel as far as the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajanta Pharma Ltd (2010 (9) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT) that deduction u/s 80HHC ....... - .......

2016 (4) TMI 557 - ITAT DELHI

M/s. Mahawar Iron Stores (P) Ltd. Versus DCIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad

Revision u/s 263 - Held that - For Brokerage expenses the case was selected for scrutiny to verify the admissible of the said expenses, but no enquiry appeared to have been made as to the purpose and basic of payment of brokerage, its connection with the business and whether the payment commensurate to the benefit derived by the Company. However, a complete list of the agents alongwith addresses was available on records, but no attempt apparently was made to verify even one of these persons. Therefore, in our considered opinion, Ld. CIT has rightly set aside the issue to the file of the AO for ....... - .......

2016 (4) TMI 1041 - ITAT JABALPUR

DPR Charitable Trust Versus CIT-II, Jabalpur

Revision u/s 263 - AO has not examined the genuineness of the trust and application of fund for charitable purposes - reference to DVO - Held that - We find that there is no whisper in the notice issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax under sec. 263 of the Act for the same. No material has been brought before us to show that the assessee was allowed any opportunity of hearing in respect of the above issue before passing the impugned order. The Commissioner of Income Tax has nowhere recorded in the impugned order that the assessee was allowed any opportunity of hearing in respect of the above ....... - .......

2016 (4) TMI 264 - DELHI HIGH COURT

Global India Electricals Versus Commissioner of Income Tax -XII & Another

Revision orders by CIT(A) - addition on account of the cash deposits - Held that - In the impugned order proceeds on a factually erroneous basis that there was no response to the notice issued to M/s Enkay Electricals under Section 133(6) of the Act. Although in the impugned order the CIT-XII notes that a confirmation letter of M/s Enkay Electricals was produced, it is not discussed. The appropriate course for the CIT-XII to adopt would have been to provide an opportunity to the Assessee to produce the said party before the CIT-XII to clarify whether the confirmation letter was in fact issued ....... - .......

2016 (4) TMI 173 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

The Commissioner of Income Tax-10 Versus M/s Reliance Communication Ltd.

Revision u/s 263 - Held that - The entire details were filed and the order itself indicates that it can be inferred that the Assessing Officer not only made enquiries, but satisfied himself with the assessee s replies furnished from time to time in support of its stand. When the Tribunal concludes in this manner and finally in paragraph 16 holds that the Assessing Officer took a perfectly correct or a possible view, then, the order passed by him cannot be termed as erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Commissioner of Income Tax was not, therefore, justifie ....... - .......

2016 (4) TMI 258 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Commissioner of Income Tax –VIII, Chennai Versus Shri M. Hemanathan

Revision orders u/s 263 - order passed against a dead person - Held that - The contention of the Department loses sight of one important distinction between a case where the proceedings are initiated against a person, who is alive, but continued after his death and a case of proceedings initiated against a dead person himself. If the proceedings had been initiated against a person, who was alive, and they were continued after his death after putting his legal heirs on notice, those proceedings, under certain circumstances, may be saved. Such a situation is also contemplated in civil proceeding ....... - .......

2016 (4) TMI 1123 - ITAT MUMBAI

Parijat Co-operative Credit Society Versus Commissioner of Income Tax-22, Mumbai

Revision u/s 263 - non entitled to deduction u/s. 80P - Held that - CIT has not discussed as to how the assessee society would fall under the definition of a co-operative bank. The order of the ld. CIT is a non-speaking order. He, without assigning any cogent and convincing reason, has set aside the order of the AO. Thus order of the AO cannot be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The ....... - .......

2016 (4) TMI 673 - ITAT KOLKATA

Trans Global PLC Versus Director of Income-tax (International Taxation)

Revision u/s 263 - whether Non-compete premium is taxable in the hands of the assessee under the head capital gains u/s. 55(2)(a) read with proviso (i) to section 28(va) - assessee is a non-resident company of UK in term of Article-7 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) with UK - Held that - It is not the case of the revenue that the assessee is having a permanent establishment in India and as such in term of Article-7 of DTAA, being non- compete premium received by assessee cannot be taxed in India. The AO while framing assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act, after considering the provisi ....... - .......

2016 (4) TMI 996 - ITAT DELHI

Meerut Roller Flour Mills (P) Ltd Versus ACIT, Circle-1, Meerut

Revision u.s 263 - Held that - On two issues, one on the verification of the trade creditors and second on the issue of allowability of expenditure u/s 40a (ia) of the Act It is apparent that subsequent orders passed by the AO dated 28.02.2014 has accepted that all loan creditors are correct and there is a minor difference in case of only three trade creditors amounting to ₹ 36756 only which has arisen only on account of difference in accounts of those parties called for u/s 133(6) of the act by AO.. Therefore on these two counts subsequent orders speaks itself that there is no error in ....... - .......


Commissioner of Income Tax I, Ludhiana Vesus M/s Superman Knitters (P) Limited

Revision u/s 263 - allocation of administrative expenses - Held that - No finding had been given by the CIT under Section 263 of the Act as to how the debit of administrative expenses made in the profit and loss account of Unit No.1 prima facie resulted in excess profit in Unit No.II and how any of such expenses were relatable to Unit No.II. The CIT merely set aside the issue without finding any error in the assessment made by the Assessing Officer. The two conditions for invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the Act were not fulfilled i.e. firstly how debit of administrative ....... - .......


M/s A.S. Precision Machines P. Limited Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab.

Revision u/s 263 - period of limitation - Held that - We find that the order under section 263 of the Act was required to be passed within two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. It has been categorically recorded by the Tribunal that the order under section 263 of the Act in the case of the assessee was passed on 20.3.2013 which was required to be passed upto 31.3.20 ....... - .......

2016 (4) TMI 461 - ITAT JODHPUR

Balar Fabrics Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jodhpur, Rajasthan

Revision u/s 263 - Held that - We are live to the provisions of Explanation (2) to Section 263 of the Act which has been introduced w. e. f. 1st June, 2015 wherein it has been explained that the order passed by the AO shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue if, in the opinion of the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner the order is passed without making enquiries or verification which should have been made . However, it should be understood that the word used in the said explanation is opinion of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner an ....... - .......

2016 (3) TMI 371 - ITAT DELHI

M/s Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd. Versus ACIT, Circle 30 (1) , New Delhi

Revision u/s 263 - Held that - Having regard to the legal position emerging from various cases including Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court case, we are of the view that lack of opportunity on some of the issues in the show cause notice, vitiates the proceedings u/ s.263 and consequently the order u/s. 263 passed by the learned PCIT is also rendered bad in law. - Further, we find that the same very issue on which the show cause notice was issued by the learned PCIT was not only thoroughly examined during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings in respect of the assessment year under appea ....... - .......

2016 (4) TMI 340 - ITAT HYDERABAD

Sri R. Sandeep Goud Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward-7 (2) , Hyderabad

Revision u/s 263 - case selected for scrutiny under Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection CASS method for verifying the sources of cash deposits - Held that - Expenditure claim towards IMFL is either from the sale proceeds of the IMFL or withdrawals from the bank account. It may be true that AO did not leave any notes about the examination of various items. But having completed assessment by recording the above noting, it can be safely presumed that AO has examined the deposits and withdrawals in the course of assessment proceedings. Even otherwise, AO disallowed a round-sum of ₹ 3 Lakhs, ou ....... - .......

2016 (4) TMI 419 - ITAT DELHI

Sh. Vikrant Puri Versus ACIT, Central Circle-13 New Delhi

Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - revision u/s 263 - Held that - We are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) have made these addition u/s 2(22)(e) and 56(2)(vi) of the I.T. Act, 1961 under different heads which has not been discussed / adjudicated by the AO in the assessment order which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The AO has not considered any of these issues pertaining to these sections. In our view Ld. CIT(A) did not have any jurisdiction to make any such additions on the issues which were never considered by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. Although the powers of the ....... - .......


what is new what is new

Latest Updates




More Options


|| About us || Contact us || Feed Back || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map || ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Website