Try our new portal www.taxtmi.com for a better experience!

Home

Case Laws

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2012 2012 (7) This

Law
Court
Citation	- -
Landmark
Order by

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 181 to 200 of 1168 Records

2012 (7) TMI 996

Issues Involved: Challenge to the validity of revision proceeding u/s 263 of the Act for assessment year 2005-06 regarding calculation of interest on partner's current account.

Summary:
1. The appeal challenges the revision proceeding initiated by the Ld. CIT u/s 263 of the Act for the assessment year 2005-06, concerning the calculation of interest on a partner's current account.

2. The Ld. CIT found that interest on the partner's current account was computed using the "product method," resulting in an excess payment of interest by the firm. The Ld. CIT held the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, directing the Assessing Officer to re-do the assessment accordingly.

3. The assessee argued that the "product method" used for interest calculation is scientific and widely accepted, considering the partner's frequent transactions. The Ld. CIT's method of calculating interest on average balances was deemed unscientific and not reflective of actual transactions, thus not prejudicial to revenue.

4. The Ld. DR supported the Ld. CIT's order, highlighting discrepancies in the partner's current account balances and endorsing the Ld. CIT's method of interest calculation.

5. The Ld. A.R. clarified that the apparent differences in balances were due to netting off multiple current accounts, which the Ld. CIT overlooked.

6. The Tribunal noted that for a revision u/s 263, the order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. Citing the Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd case, it emphasized that errors must be substantial and not every mistake warrants revision.

7. The dispute centered on the method of interest calculation, with the assessee using the "product method" based on actual transactions, while the Ld. CIT advocated for average balance calculation. The Tribunal upheld the scientific "product method" over the Ld. CIT's approach.

8. The Tribunal rejected the Ld. CIT's directive to adopt an unscientific interest calculation method, emphasizing that the Ld. CIT's view was legally unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

Judgment: The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, setting aside the Ld. CIT's order and allowing the appeal on 27-07-2012.
2012 (7) TMI 995

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are:
1. Whether the Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeals based on noncompliance of the stay order.
2. Whether adverse inference was rightly drawn against the appellant for not depositing the specified amount.
3. Whether the Tribunal erred in ignoring relevant factors and materials on record.
4. Whether the Tribunal was correct in rejecting the rectification application based on noncompliance with the deposit condition.
5. Whether the Tribunal's direction to deposit a specific amount without considering the appellant's submissions was lawful.

Issue 1: Tribunal's Dismissal based on Noncompliance of Stay Order:
The Tax Appeal was filed challenging the Tribunal's order which rejected the appeal due to the appellant's failure to make the pre-deposit or file a waiver application within the stipulated time. The Tribunal also noted that no modification application was submitted against its order, and the stay order condition was not adhered to by the appellant.

Issue 2: Adverse Inference for Non-Deposit of Specified Amount:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by drawing adverse inference against the appellant for not complying with the condition to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs as a prerequisite for granting stay. This action was taken without considering the merits of the case, solely focusing on the noncompliance with the deposit condition.

Issue 3: Ignoring Relevant Factors and Materials:
The appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in law by disregarding relevant factors and materials on record and instead considering irrelevant aspects, leading to a decision that did not address the merits of the case. This alleged oversight resulted in a perceived perverse order by the Tribunal.

Issue 4: Rejection of Rectification Application based on Noncompliance:
The Tribunal rejected the rectification application filed by the appellant, citing the failure to deposit the specified amount as the reason for dismissal. Rather than deciding the appeal on its merits, the Tribunal focused on the noncompliance with the deposit condition, leading to the rejection of the rectification application.

Issue 5: Direction to Deposit Specific Amount without Considering Submissions:
The Tribunal's decision to direct the appellant to deposit Rs. 10,00,00/ without considering the appellant's submissions for entertaining the appeal on merits raised a question of whether the Tribunal was justified in imposing such strict terms without due consideration of the appellant's arguments. This action was taken through an order dated 28.7.2006, which seemingly did not take into account the appellant's request to address the case on its merits.

In conclusion, the High Court found that the questions raised did not present any substantial question of law warranting consideration. Consequently, the Tax Appeal was dismissed, indicating that further judicial review was not deemed necessary based on the facts presented in the case.
2012 (7) TMI 994

Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for interest received on Government of India-Capital Index Bonds.
2. Confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on receipt of premium on redemption of debentures.
3. Deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of disallowance of repair expenses treated as capital expenditure.

Summary:

Issue 1: Confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for interest received on Government of India-Capital Index Bonds
Assessee purchased 6% Government of India-Capital Index Bonds and received interest of Rs. 75,00,000, which was mistakenly categorized as tax-free. Upon realizing the error during assessment proceedings, the assessee voluntarily offered the interest for taxation. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty, but the Tribunal observed that the mistake was inadvertent and the interest was voluntarily offered for tax. The Tribunal held that there was no intention to conceal income and canceled the penalty, allowing the assessee's appeal.
Issue 2: Confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on receipt of premium on redemption of debentures
Assessee claimed premium on redemption of debentures as income from capital gain, which the AO assessed as income from other sources. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's action, and no further appeal was filed. The AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for filing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal noted that the assessee disclosed all relevant facts and the dispute was only regarding the head of income. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that a mere change of head does not amount to concealment of income and canceled the penalty, allowing the assessee's appeal.
Issue 3: Deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of disallowance of repair expenses treated as capital expenditure
During assessment, the AO disallowed certain repair expenses as capital expenditure. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance but canceled the penalty, stating that the claim was bonafide and the difference between revenue and capital expenditure is thin. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that a bonafide claim, even if disallowed, does not warrant penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding penalties on interest income and premium on redemption of debentures, and dismissed the department's appeal on penalty for repair expenses.
Pronounced in the open court on 27th July, 2012
2012 (7) TMI 993

Enforcement of the order-in-original dated 12th April 2012 - Revenue states that the Committee of Chief Commissioners of Customs has on review of the order-in-original dated 12th April 2012 directed the Commissioner to file an appeal against the said order-in-original dated 12th April 2012 - Held that: - appeal against the order-in-original dated 12th April 2012 with an application for stay would be filed before the CESTAT on or before 15th August 2012 - petition dismissed - decided against Petitioner.
2012 (7) TMI 992

Reference to the matter to the DVO u/s 142A - no books of account were rejected before referring the matter u/s 142A of the Act - assessing officer was not justified in making any addition in view of the report given by the DVO and therefore, the appeal on this issue is allowed and the addition so made is deleted.
2012 (7) TMI 991

Assessment of loss - Held that:- In the absence of any material to show that the assessee has filed any such supporting material before the A.O. or such material was examined by the A.O. during the course of assessment proceeding or the ld. CIT(A) has called for the remand report from the A.O. on the impugned issue, we are of the view that in the interest of justice the matter should go back to the file of the A.O. and accordingly we set aside the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities on this account and send back the matter to the file of the A.O. to decide the same afresh
2012 (7) TMI 990

Issues involved: Maintainability of the Revenue's appeal u/s CBDT circulars on disputed tax effect below Rs. 3 lakhs.

Summary:

The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A)-IV, Ahmedabad for A.Y. 2007-2008. The counsel for the assessee contended that the appeal was not maintainable as the disputed tax effect was less than Rs. 3 lakhs, in accordance with CBDT circulars. The ITAT noted the consistent view taken on the admissibility of such appeals by the Revenue based on various instructions issued by the CBDT over time. The ITAT referred to specific instructions such as No.1979 dated 27-3-2000, No.1985 dated 29-6-2000, and others, which specified monetary limits and conditions for filing departmental appeals, thereby restricting appeals before the Appellate Tribunal. Consequently, the ITAT held that the appeal by the Revenue was not maintainable and dismissed it in limine.
2012 (7) TMI 989

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves issues related to the denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Income-tax Act due to the absence of registration u/s 12AA, eligibility for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab), activities of the society in relation to education, income sources of the assessee, and the applicability of relevant case laws.

Denial of Exemption u/s 11:
The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order regarding the denial of exemption u/s 11 due to the absence of registration u/s 12AA. The AO treated the unspent grant amount as income since the assessee was not registered u/s 12AA. The CIT(A) found the assessee eligible for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) as it fulfilled conditions for educational institutions.

Eligibility for Exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab):
The CIT(A) determined that the assessee, a society for printing and distributing school textbooks, qualified for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) as an educational institution financed by the government. Case laws and precedents were cited to support this decision.

Activities of the Society and Income Sources:
The revenue contended that the society's activities were not solely for educational purposes and included commercial elements like royalty and job work charges. The CIT(A) found the society's main activity to be printing textbooks for schools, justifying exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) based on relevant case laws.

Applicability of Case Laws:
The Tribunal considered case laws such as Assam State Text Book Production & Publication Corporation Ltd. and Bihar State Text Book Publishing Corporation to support the assessee's eligibility for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) as an educational institution. The decision highlighted the distinction from cases like Oxford University Press to uphold the CIT(A)'s order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the assessee's eligibility for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) as an educational institution fulfilling prescribed conditions and activities.
2012 (7) TMI 988

Deduction of expenses u/s 37(4) in respect of guest house expenses - Held that:- Such question is squarely covered in favour of the revenue by virtue of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Britannia Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax and another (2005 (10) TMI 30 - SUPREME Court), wherein held that section 37(4) of the Act provides for only specific items of expenditure allowable towards guest house expenses. Assessee was unable to dispute this position. In that view of the matter, we answer the question in the negative, that is, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee
2012 (7) TMI 987

Issues Involved: Appeal against deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act for Assessment Year 1996-97.

Facts and Decision on Depreciation Claim:
The assessee claimed 100% depreciation on machinery for research and development purposes, but the Assessing Officer allowed only 25% depreciation, considering it part of normal production facilities. The CIT (A) later directed 100% depreciation. However, the Tribunal reversed this decision, stating the machinery was for testing defects in products, not R&D.

Penalty Imposition and Deletion:
The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty for inaccurate particulars leading to higher depreciation claim. The CIT (A) deleted the penalty, prompting the department's appeal. The department argued the penalty was justified as the assessee concealed income by claiming higher depreciation. However, the Tribunal noted the difference of opinion among authorities on the depreciation claim, citing precedents where penalty was not warranted in such cases. The department's objections were dismissed, and the appeal was rejected.

This judgment highlights the dispute over the depreciation claim for machinery used by the assessee, leading to a penalty imposition and subsequent deletion. The Tribunal's decision emphasizes the lack of consensus among authorities on the depreciation issue, ultimately resulting in the dismissal of the department's appeal against the deletion of the penalty.
2012 (7) TMI 986

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in re-filing the objection petition u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. Examination of sufficient cause for delay in re-filing.
3. Applicability of legal precedents and statutory scheme under the Act.

Summary:

Condonation of Delay in Re-filing the Objection Petition u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996:
The appellant, Delhi Transco Ltd., challenged the order dated 05.01.2012, where the learned Single Judge dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the objection petition u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The initial objections were filed within the limitation period but were returned under defect, leading to a 72-day delay in re-filing.

Examination of Sufficient Cause for Delay in Re-filing:
The appellant argued that the delay was due to the objection petition being mistakenly tagged with other files and remained untraceable until 18.09.2011. The learned Single Judge, however, found that the appellant failed to disclose sufficient reasons for the delay, deeming the application casual and lacking specific details.

Applicability of Legal Precedents and Statutory Scheme under the Act:
The appellant relied on the decision in Competent Placement Services, which suggested a more lenient approach for condonation of delay in re-filing compared to the initial filing. However, the Division Bench in Shree Ram Construction Co. emphasized that the statutory scheme under the Act does not permit indefinite delays, and the Court must adopt stringent norms for condonation of delay in re-filing, especially when it extends beyond the statutory period of three months and thirty days.

The Court concluded that the appellant's conduct was careless and negligent, and the delay was not due to bona fide reasons. The appellant's legal department failed to ensure timely re-filing, and the delay was attributed to inaction and negligence. The learned Single Judge's decision was upheld, emphasizing that condonation of delay in such circumstances would defeat the statutory scheme of the Act.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, affirming the learned Single Judge's view that the appellant did not provide sufficient cause for the delay in re-filing the objection petition, and the delay was due to carelessness and negligence. The statutory scheme under the Act and relevant legal precedents were correctly applied, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
2012 (7) TMI 985

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and restoring the complainant's appeal for a decision on merits. The right of appeal became available after an amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure in 2009.
2012 (7) TMI 984

Claim of deduction under section 80IB - disallow deduction on the profit from the units having above 1000 sq.ft. built up area - Held that:- Neither the AO nor the CIT(A) made detailed enquiry or obtained certificates from the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai or the office of the PWD or from the Collectorate to understand the meaning of the expression “City of Mumbai” used in section 80IB(10) of the Act. In our considered opinion, the meaning of the expression “City of Mumbai” had to be correctly analysed as otherwise it is not possible to measure the distance from the municipal limit of the “City of Mumbai”. In the interests of substantial justice we, therefore, set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to reconsider the matter
2012 (7) TMI 983

Addition on account of 'On-Money' - Held that:- The material seized in form of loose paper was qua one flat No. A/204 only in respect of which taking of 'on-money' could be alleged. It was on the basis of such loose papers, the addition on On-money account was sought to be made. That material could not have been used for the subsequent years for making addition on the same count. The addition in the Assessment Year 2004-05 was not sustained by the Tribunal in the appeal before it on the ground that the Assessing Officer ought to have confined himself in respect of sale transaction of one particular flat and he could not have on that basis calculated the addition for all flats.
Accordingly, in respect of previous Assessment Year 2004-05, it was held by the Tribunal that the addition for On-money, made in the said year was not proper inasmuch as such addition could have been made only in respect of the flat in respect of which the evidence of On-money was found at the time of search. The said decision dated 31.03.2011 of ITAT, Ahmedabad was relied on, on behalf of the assessee.
Even as for the year 2004-05 also, the addition on account of Onmoney was held to be on the basis of guess work and extrapolation, again in the next yar 2005-06 being year under consideration the addition of ₹ 1,52,53,128/- was made repeating the same story. When in respect of previous Assessment Year 2004-05 also the Tribunal had dismissed the Department’s appeal on the ground that the addition in that year also was based on extrapolation, it emerged beyond pale of doubt that for the addition made for the year 2005-06 there was no evidence whatsoever and the same was presumptive in nature.
2012 (7) TMI 982

Issues involved: Disallowance of expenses u/s 14A r.w.rule 8D, Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) in respect of NSE settlement & Leaseline charges

Issue 1: Disallowance of expenses u/s 14A r.w.rule 8D

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of expenses disallowance amounting to Rs. 9,09,083 u/s 14A r.w.rule 8D. The Commissioner (Appeals) restricted the disallowance to 5% of the dividend income, stating that rule 8D is not applicable. The Revenue contested this decision, but the Tribunal declined to interfere, citing the smallness of the matter and the Commissioner's reasoning based on Tribunal decisions.

Issue 2: Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) in respect of NSE settlement & Leaseline charges

The Revenue challenged the deletion of disallowance amounting to Rs. 5,79,525 u/s 40(a)(ia) for NSE settlement & Leaseline charges. The Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in favor of the assessee, considering the nature of the services provided by the stock exchange and the fact that TDS was not deducted. The Tribunal referred to a similar case where disallowance was not upheld under section 40(a)(ia) for similar charges, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decisions of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding both issues, resulting in the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.
2012 (7) TMI 981

CENVAT credit - GTA services - case of appellant is that Coal so brought was used for generation of power and such power captivity consumed as well as part of the power so generated was transmitted to some of the own units of the appellant for use in manufacture, credit is not deniable - Revenue on the other hand says that when power was not fully utilised by the appellant in its factory, transmission thereof to other unit shall not grant any benefit of cenvat credit to the appellant - Held that: - When admitted fact is that coal came to power plant site for use in generation of power and it came through the carrier suffering service tax, there is nothing to doubt on use of input for generation of power in the absence of contrary evidence. When coal became input and service tax has been paid to transport the coal, Revenue should have come out clearly spelling out quantum of coal used in generation of power for no use in manufacture or in relation to manufacture - credit allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
2012 (7) TMI 980

Issues Involved:
1. Acceptance of scaled-down dues by unsecured creditors post BIFR scheme approval.
2. Legal provisions under SICA regarding unsecured creditors' consent.
3. Suspension of legal proceedings and contracts under Section 22 of SICA.
4. Applicability of Section 391 of the Companies Act in BIFR schemes.

Summary:

1. Acceptance of Scaled-Down Dues by Unsecured Creditors:
The primary issue was whether an unsecured creditor must accept the scaled-down value of its dues under a BIFR-approved rehabilitation scheme or can wait until the company is rehabilitated to recover the full debt. The court concluded that the petitioner, an unsecured creditor, has the option to wait until the scheme has worked itself out and recover the debt post such rehabilitation.

2. Legal Provisions under SICA Regarding Unsecured Creditors' Consent:
The petitioner argued that BIFR does not have the power to compel unsecured creditors to accept reduced dues as no such provision exists u/s 19 of SICA. The AAIFR negated this plea, stating that while SICA does not explicitly require unsecured creditors' consent, the scheme is binding on all creditors once approved. However, the court disagreed, emphasizing that BIFR cannot mandate debt write-offs without the creditor's consent, as this would rewrite the contract without legal provision.

3. Suspension of Legal Proceedings and Contracts under Section 22 of SICA:
Section 22 of SICA allows for the suspension of legal proceedings and contracts during the preparation and implementation of a rehabilitation scheme. The court noted that this suspension could last up to seven years, during which the creditor's rights are on hold. This provision ensures that creditors cannot enforce their claims until the scheme is fully implemented.

4. Applicability of Section 391 of the Companies Act in BIFR Schemes:
The respondents referenced Section 391 of the Companies Act, which requires creditor consent for schemes of arrangement. The court clarified that BIFR does not follow this procedure, and there is no collective decision-making by creditors. Therefore, Section 391 does not apply to BIFR schemes, and unsecured creditors are not compelled to accept reduced dues.

Conclusion:
The court unequivocally held that an unsecured creditor has the option not to accept the scaled-down value of its dues and can wait until the rehabilitation scheme is completed to claim the full debt. The impugned order of AAIFR was set aside, and the petitioner was not required to choose from the three options provided in the sanctioned scheme. The writ petition was allowed, with parties bearing their own costs.
2012 (7) TMI 979

Issues Involved:
1. Competence of Sub Registrar to make an endorsement regarding attachment of immovable property.
2. Applicability of Section 102 and Chapter VII-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
3. Validity of the Sub Registrar's action based on the police officer's request.
4. Provisions of the Registration Act and Rules regarding attachment and encumbrance.

Summary:

1. Competence of Sub Registrar to make an endorsement regarding attachment of immovable property:
The petitioner challenged the unauthorized endorsement of attachment made against their property in the encumbrance certificate. The main issue was whether the Sub Registrar is competent to make such an endorsement based on a request from an investigating officer. The court concluded that the Sub Registrar is not empowered by any provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to pass an order of attachment and show the same in the encumbrance certificate. An order of attachment can only be passed by a competent court, which was absent in this case.

2. Applicability of Section 102 and Chapter VII-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
The court examined the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, particularly Section 102, which gives power to the police officer to seize certain property. However, it was determined that Section 102 does not include the power to attach immovable property. The court also noted that Chapter VII-A of the Code, which deals with reciprocal arrangements for assistance in certain matters and procedure for attachment and forfeiture of property, does not apply to local offences but only to offences with international ramifications, as clarified by the Apex Court in State of M.P. v. Balram Mihani and others {(2010) 2 SCC 602}.

3. Validity of the Sub Registrar's action based on the police officer's request:
The court found that the Sub Registrar's action of making an endorsement in the encumbrance certificate based on the police officer's request was unauthorized and illegal. The letter from the police officer could not be treated as an order of attachment. The court emphasized that the Sub Registrar could not act in the absence of a specific order passed by a competent court.

4. Provisions of the Registration Act and Rules regarding attachment and encumbrance:
The court referred to Section 89 of the Registration Act, which outlines the procedure for filing copies of certain orders, certificates, and instruments with the Registering Officer. It was noted that the Sub Registrar is not empowered to pass an order of attachment or make an endorsement in the registers on their own. The court also highlighted that the meaning of "attachment" and "encumbrance" requires an order of attachment by a competent court to create an encumbrance over the property.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was allowed, and the court directed the second respondent to remove the unauthorized endorsement of attachment from the register. The judgment clarified that this decision does not prevent interested parties from obtaining valid orders of attachment from a competent court. No costs were awarded.
2012 (7) TMI 978

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the classification of lands sold by the assessee as capital assets for taxation purposes, entitlement to exemption u/s 54B of the Act, disallowance of expenses u/s 14A of the Act, disallowance of certain expenses, and classification of agricultural income as income from other sources.

Classification of Lands as Capital Assets:
The appellant contested that the lands sold were beyond the prescribed municipal limit of 8 kms, citing evidence from the municipal map and a certificate from the village Panchayat. The respondent argued that the village was within the limit based on a letter from the Joint Controller. The Tribunal referred to relevant case law emphasizing measurement by road, not aerial distance, and remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer for accurate measurement.

Disallowance of Expenses u/s 14A:
The appellant challenged the disallowance of expenses amounting to &8377;1,07,398 under section 14A of the Act. The Tribunal found no fault in the calculation of expenses by the CIT(A) and upheld the disallowance.

Disallowance of Certain Expenses:
Regarding the disallowance of &8377;1,10,792 from expenses related to share trading and F&O transactions, the Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to disallow 50% of the claimed expenses based on the facts presented in the impugned order.

Classification of Agricultural Income:
The appellant's claim of agricultural income was disallowed due to alleged lack of agricultural activity. However, the appellant provided receipts from Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti as evidence of agricultural produce sales. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the authenticity of these receipts and decide on the classification of income accordingly.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remanding the issue of land classification, upholding the disallowance of expenses u/s 14A, confirming the disallowance of certain expenses, and directing further examination of the classification of agricultural income. The order was pronounced on 10th July, 2012, in the presence of representatives from both sides.
2012 (7) TMI 977

Revision u/s 263 - Held that:- The powers under section 263 clearly cannot be invoked on the facts of this case to simply safeguard the interests of the revenue. This power can only be exercised when order sought to be revised is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, and an order cannot be treated as erroneous as long as the Assessing Officer has taken a possible view of the matter even though, according to the Commissioner, the view so taken is not the correct view of the matter. Bearing in mind all these factors, as also entirety of the case, we find the impugned revision order unsustainable in law, and we, therefore, cancel the same. The assessee gets the relief accordingly.