Retrospective Amendment subsequent to Assessment Order will not attract Section 263

The problem with Section 80HHCis that it has been amended eleven times. Different views existed on the day when the Commissioner passed the above order. Moreover, the mechanics of the section have become so complicated over the years that two views were inherently possible. Therefore, subsequent amendment in 2005 even though retrospective will not attract the provision of Section 263 particularly…

S. 263 Non application of mind cannot be said Merely because AO has not dealt with an issue in Assessment Order

Issues Under Consideration

(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in quashing the order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act,1961 as undoubtedly, the expenditure of Rs.2.94 crores was incurred to create the brand “Nirvana” – an intangible asset ? (more…)

A.O. is not only an adjudicator but also an investigator

 CA Prarthana JalanHon’ble Delhi ITAT while deciding a case involving issue of sec 263 of the Income Tax Act,1961 has held that A.O. is  not only an adjudicator but also an investigator.The observation of the Hon’ble bench is as under :- It  is  settled  law  that  that  frequency  and  magnitude  of transaction  are  also  important  factor  to  decide   whether  the transaction is business…

Validity of order u/s 263 on a issue on a issue on which CIT (A) has already decided in favour of Assessee

Ld. Commissioner of Income  Tax in his notice u/s 263 dated 18.3.2014 stated that prima facie deduction claimed u/s 80IC of the Act by the assessee is not justifiable on the following grounds :-

Assessee is assembling and trading LCDs and it is not carrying on manufacturing of goods.

The unit of the assessee is not in a notified area

The assessee gave a detailed reply on 7.4.20 14, inter alia…

AO has not made any discussion regarding the subjects raised by the Ld. CIT u/s. 263 and the AO has mechanically accepted what the assessee wanted him to accept without any application of mind or enquiry. Further, no evidence had been placed that the…

The Commissioner after recording cogent reasons found that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. He was therefore, on facts of the case entitled to exercise revisional powers under…