TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 1504
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ribunal was justified in quashing the order u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act of Ld. PCIT especially when the Order passed by A.O was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as the AO failed to verify and add source of remaining investment of Rs. 55 lakhs? (iii) Whether the Ld. Tribunal was justified in quashing the order u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act of Ld. PCIT especially when Order passed by the A.O. is unsustainable in law? (iv) Whether the Ld. Tribunal was justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee against the order u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act of Ld. PCIT when there was gross inadequacy in inquiry conducted as per order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of the Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Paville P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee carried the matter before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, on appreciation of several judicial precedents on this very issue, in para 5 of the judgement held as under: "5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. On our view, the case of the assessee is covered in its favour by various judicial precedents on this issue. In the case of Gayatri Enterprise v. ITO, 116 taxmann.com 359 (Gujarat), the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court held that where Principle Commissioner invoked revisional jurisdiction for the reason that against consideration of Rs. 45361 lakh paid by assessee for purchase of land, stamp duty of Rs. 22.90 lakh was paid and it was to be presumed that value of property wou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of partners in their profit sharing ration on ground that partners arranged finance for payment of on money. The ITAT held that since Assessing Officer had not brought any positive material to show that assessee had made undisclosed investment in plot purchased in name of partnership firm, no addition was called for in hands of assessee. In the case of CIT v. Discovery Estate (P.) Ltd. 31 taxmann.com 180 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court held that without any evidence of understatement, additions cannot be made to sale price or profits based merely on perceived general market conditions or notorious practices in trade circles. 5.1 In view of the above judicial precedents in favour of the assessee, we are of the considered view that the order....