Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
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:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    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
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      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

        -

        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 upholds Income Tax reassessment, emphasizing thorough assessment procedures.</h1> <h3>M/s Nagarjuna Hospitals Pvt. Ltd Versus Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1 (1) Vijayawada</h3> The Tribunal upheld the Principal Commissioner's order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, dismissing the assessee's challenge. The Tribunal found ... Revision u/s 263 by CIT - As per the CIT, AO has not recorded the findings on the share premium received by the assessee in the impugned assessment year - since the AO has not examined the issue of share premium, the order is considered to be erroneous to the interest of the revenue - HELD THAT:- From the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, we observe that there is no finding recorded by the AO or any discussion on the share premium received by the assessee during the A.Y.2015-16. CIT, being the revisional authority considered the order of the AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. As the AO has not verified or made any enquiries with respect to share premium received by the assessee company, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the Pr.CIT u/s 263 of the Act, considering the order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act as erroneous is in accordance with the provisions u/s 263 and hence the order of the Ld.Pr.CIT needs no interference. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Ld.Pr.CIT and dismiss the grounds raised by the assessee. Issues: Condonation of Delay, Validity of Order under Section 263 of the Income Tax ActCondonation of Delay:The appeal was filed with a delay of 522 days against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The delay was attributed to a misunderstanding regarding the appeal process. The assessee believed the appeal could be filed against a consequential order, not the order passed by the Principal Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. Following the Supreme Court's decision to exclude a specific period, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was admitted for hearing.Validity of Order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act:The assessee challenged the order passed under Section 263 of the Act by the Principal Commissioner, arguing that the original assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act was not erroneous. The assessee contended that all relevant information was provided to the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. However, the Departmental Representative argued that the issue of share premium was not examined by the Assessing Officer, rendering the order erroneous. The Tribunal observed that the original assessment order did not address the share premium issue, leading to the conclusion that the order was indeed erroneous. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Principal Commissioner's order under Section 263 of the Act, dismissing the grounds raised by the assessee.Analysis:The Tribunal considered the grounds raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee argued that the original assessment order was not erroneous as all relevant information was provided during the assessment proceedings. However, the Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer did not address the issue of share premium received by the assessee, leading to the conclusion that the order was indeed erroneous. As a result, the Tribunal upheld the Principal Commissioner's order under Section 263, emphasizing the importance of thorough assessment procedures to avoid such errors in the future.Conclusion:The Tribunal's decision highlights the significance of a comprehensive assessment process to ensure accurate and thorough consideration of all relevant aspects. In this case, the failure to address the issue of share premium in the original assessment order led to the order being deemed erroneous under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal's ruling underscores the importance of diligent assessment practices to prevent such errors and uphold the integrity of the tax assessment system.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found