Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.39 seconds)
Shri Balbir Singh Verma,Shimla vs Pr.Cit, Shimla on 14 May, 2025 cites

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Sohana Woollen Mills on 22 September, 2006

11.3 Further, the issues raised were based on audit objections that had already been addressed by the Assessing Officer. The Pr. CIT initially agreed with the Assessing Officer's view but later changed his stance without any new facts or independent analysis. Such a change of opinion is not valid under Section 263, as confirmed by the judgments in CIT v. Sohana Woollen Mills (supra) and Vaneet Gupta vs. PCIT (supra). Therefore, the original assessment under Section 143(3) was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue. The Pr. CIT's revisionary order under Section 263 is invalid and is accordingly set aside.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 77 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central ... vs Nirav Modi on 14 December, 2016

9.4 It is a well settled law that the Ld. AO is the final fact finder and it is his prerogative to exercise his judgment regarding the extent of enquiry required in a case. The Ld. Pr. CIT does not have the authority to dictate how detailed the enquiry should be or compel the ld. AO to make additions based on his suspicion. It is only when some evidence is found by the Pr. CIT that he can direct further enquiry. Or he must show that what further enquiry made would have led to definite different result. Reliance in this regard is placed on the law laid by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Nirav Modi [(2016) 390 ITR 292 (Bom)] (copy of judgment appended from page 14-23 of this synopsis) wherein it was held that if Assessee provides primary documents, and the AO makes a conscious decision based on material available, then the Pr. CIT cannot invoke s. 263 merely because he believes that deeper investigation should have been done. The Hon'ble court clearly defines the boundaries within which the Pr.CIT can exercise revisional powers u/s 263 of the Act. By affirming that as long as the ld. AO conducts reasonable inquiry, the revisional authority cannot second-guess or reopen closed assessments without substantive reasons.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 171 - Full Document
1   2 Next