9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1567X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e part of the PCIT. The Notional Guarantee Income charged from joint venture of the investment and hence investment cost has been increased by the said amount cannot be treated as actual income incurred by the assessee. PCIT while invoking the provision of section 263 of the Act has totally ignored the aspect that the AO has verify the same and in fact Notional Guarantee Income has not resulted into any loss of the Revenue as contemplated by Ld.PCIT in para 7.1 of the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act. Thus, in the present case the Assessing Officer has not passed the assessment order which will result into prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue or erroneous to the interest of Revenue. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. - Ms. Suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... basis whatsoever to the effect that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act by the Assessing Officer was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 4. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant s case, the PCIT-1, Ahmedabad has failed to appreciate that the twin conditions for assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act are not satisfied in the case of appellant company as issue which has been relied upon for passing the order u/s. 263 does not show any error or prejudice to the interest of the revenue. 5. The appellant craves to add, later, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal. 3. The return of income for AY 2018-19 was f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e wherein the assessee had rightly reduced it by computing the income from business and profession. The Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.PCIT has taken different view which is not permissible as per the section 263 of the Act. The Assessment order is not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and therefore the Ld.PCIT was not right in invoking the provision of section 263 of the Act. The Ld.AR also relied upon the following judicial precedents. a. Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v/s. Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502. b. Hon ble SC in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83. c. Hon ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs G M Mittal Stainless Steel Pvt. Ltd. 263 ITR 255. d. Hon ble High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the same, the same was allowed by the Assessing Officer. The Observation of the Ld.PCIT that the same was not examined properly is not justifiable on the part of the Ld.PCIT. The Notional Guarantee Income charged from joint venture of the investment and hence investment cost has been increased by the said amount cannot be treated as actual income incurred by the assessee. The Ld.PCIT while invoking the provision of section 263 of the Act has totally ignored the aspect that the Assessing Officer has verify the same and in fact Notional Guarantee Income has not resulted into any loss of the Revenue as contemplated by Ld.PCIT in para 7.1 of the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act. Thus, in the present case the Assessing Officer has not passe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
