9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 as AO has taken a possible view in the matter and there is nothing to indicate that the AO has applied the provisions on an incorrect way - HELD THAT:- Since the view taken by the Assessing Officer is a possible view, the Principal CIT has assumed jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act without properly complying with the mandate of Section 263 - ITAT held that the Principal CIT has failed to show that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ock in trade u/s. 45(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore, capital gains on transfer of stock in trade be subjected to tax in A. Y. 2011-12? (b) Whether in law and in given facts and circumstances of the case, eligibility of the assessee to receive 51 percent of the saleable area from the developer represents the consideration towards transfer of stock in trade to the developer? ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-12, Mumbai (Principal CIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), revising the Assessment Order passed by Assessing Officer under Section 143 (3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2011-12. Respondent challenged validity of revision order passed by Principal CIT. 3. Assessee was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of agricultura ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of Revenue unless the view taken by the Income Tax Officer is unsustainable in law. The ITAT also considered the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108), on the question is to when an order can be termed as erroneous. The ITAT came to a findin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
