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

        <h1>Tax Tribunal rejects Section 263 invocation, rules in favor of taxpayer on jurisdiction & disallowances</h1> <h3>Aksharchem (India) Ltd. Versus Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-1, Ahmedabad</h3> Aksharchem (India) Ltd. Versus Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-1, Ahmedabad - TMI Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction and validity of the order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.2. Non-inclusion of unutilized balance of CENVAT credit in the closing stock under Section 145A.3. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction and Validity of the Order Passed Under Section 263:The appellant challenged the jurisdiction and validity of the order passed under Section 263 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), arguing that the conditions necessary for invoking Section 263 were not fulfilled. The appellant contended that the original assessment order passed under Section 143(3) was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the power of revision under Section 263 is supervisory and can only be exercised if the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, which held that both conditions must be satisfied for Section 263 to be invoked. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT was not justified in invoking Section 263 as the Assessing Officer (AO) had made necessary inquiries and the view taken by the AO was a permissible view in law.2. Non-inclusion of Unutilized Balance of CENVAT Credit in the Closing Stock Under Section 145A:The CIT observed that the assessee had not included the unutilized balance of CENVAT credit in the closing stock, which should have been done under Section 145A. The assessee argued that it was following the Exclusive Method of accounting, where the excise duty paid on raw materials was held as advance (MODVAT credit) and adjusted against excise duty payable on finished goods. The Tribunal noted that the AO had raised specific queries regarding this issue during the assessment proceedings, and the assessee had provided satisfactory explanations. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd., which held that unavailed MODVAT credit cannot be construed as income. The Tribunal found that the AO's decision was a permissible view and not erroneous.3. Disallowance Under Section 14A Read with Rule 8D:The CIT noted that the AO had not correctly disallowed the interest expenditure under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The assessee contended that it had considered net interest for the purpose of disallowance and that the AO had raised specific queries and applied his mind before deciding the issue. The Tribunal observed that the AO had indeed made necessary inquiries and was satisfied with the assessee's submissions. The Tribunal emphasized that when two views are possible, and the AO has taken one view, the CIT cannot invoke Section 263 merely because he disagrees with the AO's view, unless the AO's view is unsustainable in law. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Max India Ltd., which supported this principle.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the CIT was not justified in invoking Section 263 as the AO had made necessary inquiries, and the views taken by the AO were permissible and sustainable in law. The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and allowed the assessee's appeal.Order:The assessee's appeal was allowed, and the order of the CIT cancelling the AO's assessment order was set aside. The order was pronounced on June 3, 2016, at Ahmedabad.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found