Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Tribunal quashes arbitrary tax orders, finds lack of justification.

        M/s Kangaro Industries Ltd. And M/s Kanin India Versus The Pr. CIT (Central), Ludhiana

        M/s Kangaro Industries Ltd. And M/s Kanin India Versus The Pr. CIT (Central), Ludhiana - TMI Issues Involved:
        1. Assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
        2. Failure to consider various replies and submissions.
        3. Lack of inquiry by the Assessing Officer (AO) on specific issues raised by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT).

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Assumption of Jurisdiction under Section 263:
        The main contention of the assessee was that the Pr. CIT wrongly assumed jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act to set aside the assessment order dated 25.05.2015. The assessee argued that the order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The Tribunal found that the AO had made detailed inquiries on all issues flagged by the Pr. CIT during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the Pr. CIT failed to demonstrate any error in the AO's order that was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Tribunal emphasized that the Pr. CIT should have made some minimalistic inquiry to establish that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.

        2. Failure to Consider Various Replies and Submissions:
        The assessee contended that the Pr. CIT did not consider the various replies and submissions placed on record. The Tribunal examined the records and found that the AO had raised specific queries through questionnaires and order-sheet entries, which were duly replied to by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the Pr. CIT did not bring any contrary evidence or fact to support the conclusion that the AO had not made any inquiries or verification. The Tribunal concluded that the Pr. CIT's presumption that the AO did not make any inquiries was unsupported by any evidence.

        3. Lack of Inquiry by the Assessing Officer:
        The Pr. CIT had identified several issues where he believed the AO had not made adequate inquiries:
        - Outward Remittances: The Pr. CIT claimed that the AO did not examine the nature of payments made in foreign currency, especially regarding commission and registration of trademarks without deduction of tax at source. The Tribunal found that the AO had raised specific queries and received detailed replies from the assessee, supported by documentary evidence.
        - Currency Variations: The Pr. CIT argued that the AO did not examine the transactions resulting in loss due to foreign exchange currency variation. The Tribunal noted that the AO had called for detailed explanations and supporting documents, which were provided by the assessee.
        - Additions in Fixed Assets: The Pr. CIT contended that the AO did not verify whether the assets were installed and put to use during the year. The Tribunal found that the AO had raised specific queries and received detailed replies, including sample invoices and other supporting documents.
        - Purchases from Persons Covered under Section 40A(2)(b): The Pr. CIT claimed that the AO did not verify whether the transactions were at arm's length. The Tribunal noted that the AO had raised specific queries and received detailed replies, supported by form No. 3CEB and other documents.
        - Commission Payment: The Pr. CIT argued that the AO allowed sales commission without proper verification. The Tribunal found that the AO had raised specific queries and received detailed replies, supported by certificates from Chartered Accountants and other documents.

        The Tribunal concluded that the Pr. CIT failed to demonstrate any error in the AO's order that was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Tribunal emphasized that the Pr. CIT should have made some minimalistic inquiry to establish that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.

        Conclusion:
        The Tribunal quashed the orders passed by the Pr. CIT under section 263 of the Income Tax Act in both appeals, holding that the exercise of power was arbitrary and whimsical. The Tribunal emphasized that the Pr. CIT failed to demonstrate any error in the AO's order that was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and did not make any minimalistic inquiry to support his conclusions. The appeals of the assessees were allowed.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found