Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.55 seconds)Commnr. Of Income Tax, Kolhapur vs Icici Bank Ltd on 13 October, 2008
Similarly,
in the case of CIT vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Bombay
High Court has held that where the commissioner exercises jurisdiction
u/s 263 of the Act, with reference to an issue which is covered by
original order of assessment under section 143(3) of the Act and does
not form the subject matter of reassessment limitation must necessarily
begin to run from the order under section 143(3) of the Act.
Commr.Of Income Tax-V,New Delhi vs M/S Oracle Software India Ltd on 13 January, 2010
In view of the discussion in the foregoing paras, we are of the
considered view that the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(E) is
contrary to the evidence on record and also not in accordance with the
ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High
Courts discussed above. Hence, we find merit in the appeal of the
assessee. Accordingly, we allow appeal of the assessee and set aside the
impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) under section 263 of the Act.
Director Of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs Maharaja Agarsen Technical Education ... on 8 October, 2010
6. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties. As pointed out
by the Ld counsel, the Ld CIT(E) has revised the assessment order
holding that the AO has decided the matter in favour of the assessee
without going deep into the issue regarding seized foreign currency and
excess income of Rs.2.30 crores over total expenditure. In response to
the notice u/s 263 of the Act the assessee submitted that the competent
adjudicating authority has given clean chit to the assessee trust by
dropping the charges under FEMA, 1999 against the assessee trust.
Regarding expenses of 38 lacs against the total receipt of Rs. 2.54 crore,
the assessee submitted that an amount of Rs. 2.50 crore was paid as
advance for purchase of land and as per the judgment of the Hon'ble
ITA No.624-Chd-2019-
M/s KarmaeGarchan Trust, Distt. Kangra
6
Delhi High Court in the case of DIT (Exemptions) vs. Maharaja Agarsen
Technical Education society (supra), advance for purchase land is to be
treated as application of funds. The Ld. counsel further invited our
attention to the copy of agreement dated 10.09.2010 to purchase land
from Sh. Kul Prakash, Dr. Swtantra Kumar and Sh. Sher Singh for a
total consideration of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- and the vendors received Rs.
25,00,000/- vide three cheques drawn on State Bank of India Melodganj,
to establish the genuineness of the transaction. The Ld. counsel further
pointed out that the venders have submitted affidavits and affirmed the
said transaction, copies of the said affidavits are available on record. As
mentioned by the Ld. CIT(E), the assessee has submitted copy of
aforesaid agreement, cash books maintained by the assessee for the date
of advance given to the seller and the ledger Account of (land advance).
We further notice that the Ld. CIT(E) has not rebutted the contention of
the assessee and only observed that there is no evidence of having been
examined these aspects by the AO. Further, the Ld. CIT(E) has not
pointed out as to how the assessment order is erroneous. The Ld. CIT(E)
has not pointed out any evidence or cogent reason to hold that the
assessee trust has received anonymous donation.
Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 12A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Haritha Finance Limited Reported In 283 ... on 27 April, 2009
In the case of Malabar
Industries Co Ltd.vs CIT (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
that CIT has to be satisfied of twin conditions namely, that the order
sought to be revised is erroneous and that the order is prejudicial to the
interest of the revenue. The Hon'ble Court further held that power u/s
ITA No.624-Chd-2019-
M/s KarmaeGarchan Trust, Distt. Kangra
7
263 cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake
committed by the AO. The Hon'ble Court further held that the phrase
prejudicial to the interest of the revenue has to be read in conjunction
with an erroneous order passed by the AO. Hence, every loss of revenue
as a consequence of an order cannot be termed as prejudicial to the
interest of the revenue.
Income Tax Officer vs Dg Housing Projects Ltd on 1 March, 2012
In the case of ITO vs. DG Housing Projects
(supra) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that revisional power u/s
263 of the Act is normally exercised in the case of no enquiry and not in
the case of inadequate enquiry. AO has passed the assessment order
after making enquiries, the Ld. CIT(E) has wrongly observed that the
AO has passed the order without making any inquiry on the issues
discussed in the revisional order. The documents referred by the Ld.
counsel do not suggest that the AO has passed the assessment order
without conducting any enquiry. Hence, in our considered view this was
not the case where the AO has passed the assessment without making
enquiry for holding the same as erroneous.