Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram
Income Tax - Highlights / Catch Notes

Home Highlights September 2024 Year 2024 This

Issue of reassessment u/s 263, where the Commissioner of Income ...


Reassessment not prejudicial to Revenue's interest as queries addressed in original assessment.

Case Laws     Income Tax

September 20, 2024

Issue of reassessment u/s 263, where the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) upheld the reassessment as erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interest for verification of transactions related to NSEL commodities and provision for bad debt claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal relied on the Bombay High Court's decisions in Marico Ltd. and GKN Sinter Metals Ltd., which held that if a query was raised by the Assessing Officer (AO) during the assessment proceedings and the assessee responded, it implies the AO accepted the assessee's submission. If the assessment order does not reflect consideration of the issue, it means no opinion was formed by the AO. In this case, the issues of NSEL transactions and bad debt provision were considered by the AO during the original and reassessment proceedings. The AO verified the complete facts and framed the assessment u/s 147 read with Section 144B after examining the details provided by the assessee. The Tribunal found no error in the reassessment order prejudicial to the Revenue's interest and quashed the CIT's revision order, allowing the assessee's appeal.

View Source

 


 

You may also like:

  1. Revision u/s 263 by CIT - The phrase prejudicial to the interest of revenue has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the A.O. Every loss of...

  2. Validity of Revision u/s 263 - An order which is prejudicial to revenue even if no Tax Loss - The High Court found that the AO's assessment did not adequately address...

  3. Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - claim of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) - provision for Non-Performing Advances as per the RBI Regulations - The court observed that the...

  4. Interest u/s 158BFA(1) - the interest u/s 158BFA(1) should be charged upto the date of original assessment order, i.e., the expression “date of completion of assessment...

  5. The Appellate Tribunal addressed the issue of levying interest u/s 234B in proceedings u/s 147/148. The AO had enhanced the interest from the date of the original...

  6. Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue, affirming the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) that...

  7. Assessee received funds from four parties, which were not considered by the Assessing Officer (AO) during assessment proceedings u/s 147 read with Section 144. The...

  8. Reopening u/s 147 - original assessment u/s 143(3) - notice issued within 4 year - specific queries were raised in original assessment proceedings, which were duly...

  9. Reopening of assessment - notice issued after the expiry of more than 4 years - Capitalization of interest income - The High Court observed that, the AO having raised a...

  10. Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Reason to believe - change of opinion - The reason we say that there is a change of opinion is because once a query has been raised...

  11. Reassessment proceeding under Section 147 was made to form change of opinion and therefore, it would clearly amount to reviewing the original order of assessment u/s 147...

  12. During the original assessment proceedings, the assessee complied with all queries and provided details regarding long-term capital gain claimed on sale of shares. The...

  13. The ITAT Chandigarh considered a revision u/s 263 by CIT regarding the period of limitation for completing requisite action. The assessment order was passed on...

  14. Reopening of assessment - reasons to believe - On the issue of disclosure and compliance with TDS provisions, the court found that the petitioner had indeed disclosed...

  15. The High Court held that the jurisdictional facts necessary to invoke Section 147 for reassessment were absent. The reassessment was initiated after the four-year...

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates