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>Tribunal Overturns PCIT Order in Assessee's Favor</h1> <h3>Ashesh Nanalal Doshi Versus The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Surat</h3> Ashesh Nanalal Doshi Versus The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Surat - TMI Issues Involved:1. Initiation of proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.2. Verification of property transactions under Section 50C during the assessment.3. Validity and legality of the assessment order under Section 143(3).4. Applicability of Section 50C to the revaluation of assets transferred by a partner to a firm.5. Setting aside of the assessment order by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT).Detailed Analysis:1. Initiation of Proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act:The Assessee challenged the initiation of proceedings under Section 263 by the PCIT, arguing that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The PCIT had issued a show-cause notice under Section 263, indicating that the AO failed to verify the sale consideration of certain properties in accordance with Section 50C, rendering the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.2. Verification of Property Transactions under Section 50C:The PCIT noted that the AO did not investigate the sale consideration of three immovable properties from the perspective of Section 50C during the assessment proceedings. The properties were transferred by the Assessee to a partnership firm as a capital contribution, and the Assessee had shown gains/losses in the return of income. The PCIT argued that the AO's omission to apply Section 50C made the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.3. Validity and Legality of the Assessment Order under Section 143(3):The Assessee contended that the AO had made due inquiries during personal hearings and that the assessment order under Section 143(3) was valid. The Assessee provided complete details of the capital gain/loss and argued that the AO had verified these details before passing the assessment order. The Assessee also argued that the properties were transferred at agricultural land valuation, and there was no violation of Section 50C.4. Applicability of Section 50C to the Revaluation of Assets Transferred by a Partner to a Firm:The Assessee argued that the transfer of capital assets by a partner to a firm as a capital contribution is covered under Section 45(3) of the Act, which provides a special provision for such transfers. The Assessee contended that Section 50C does not apply to these transactions, as Section 45(3) deems the value recorded in the firm's books as the full value of consideration. The Assessee relied on case laws to support this argument, including decisions from the Mumbai and Chennai Tribunals.5. Setting Aside of the Assessment Order by the PCIT:The PCIT did not accept the Assessee's arguments and held that the properties transferred were not agricultural land at the time of transfer. The PCIT concluded that the AO had not properly verified the transactions and that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The PCIT set aside the assessment order and directed the AO to re-examine the issue.Tribunal's Decision:The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and reviewed the relevant case laws. The Tribunal noted that the AO had made inquiries during the assessment and that the Assessee had provided detailed information regarding the capital gains. The Tribunal also referred to the decisions of the Mumbai and Chennai Tribunals, which held that Section 50C does not apply to transactions covered under Section 45(3).The Tribunal concluded that the AO had taken a reasonable and legally sustainable view, and the assessment order was not erroneous. The Tribunal held that the twin conditions for invoking Section 263, namely, the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, were not satisfied in this case. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the PCIT's order and allowed the Assessee's appeal.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal, setting aside the PCIT's order under Section 263. The Tribunal held that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, as the AO had made due inquiries and the provisions of Section 50C did not apply to the transactions covered under Section 45(3).

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found