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 tax authority's order, reinstates original assessment.</h1> <h3>M/s. Sun Developers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bilaspur (C.G.)</h3> M/s. Sun Developers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bilaspur (C.G.) - [2023] 101 ITR (Trib) 688 (ITAT [Raipur]) Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.3. Adequacy of enquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer (A.O).4. Applicability of Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.5. Interpretation of 'Explanation 2' to Section 263.Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The assessee challenged the jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax (Pr. CIT) under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Pr. CIT issued a show-cause notice to the assessee, questioning the authenticity of the share application money received by the assessee. The assessee contended that the A.O had already conducted a detailed enquiry and verified the transactions during the assessment proceedings, hence the Pr. CIT could not assume jurisdiction under Section 263.2. Erroneous and Prejudicial to the Interest of Revenue:The Pr. CIT held that the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Pr. CIT argued that the A.O failed to properly verify the authenticity of the share application money received by the assessee from M/s Sakshi Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., which was allegedly a shell company. The Pr. CIT pointed out that the financial statements of the investor company indicated it had not conducted any trading activities and had substantial borrowings and investments, typical of a shell company.3. Adequacy of Enquiry Conducted by the A.O:The A.O had conducted an enquiry into the share application money received by the assessee, including issuing a notice under Section 133(6) to the investor company and obtaining various documents such as income-tax returns, audited financial statements, bank statements, and confirmation of the transaction. The director of the investor company also appeared before the A.O and confirmed the transaction. The Tribunal noted that the A.O had carried out a detailed examination and verification of the transaction, and the primary onus cast upon the assessee to substantiate the nature and source of the credits was duly discharged.4. Applicability of Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The assessee argued that no addition was permissible under Section 68 or any other section of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as the share application money was genuine and substantiated by documentary evidence. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, noting that the A.O had thoroughly examined the transaction and found it to be in order. The Tribunal emphasized that the A.O had adopted a possible and plausible view based on the evidence available, and the Pr. CIT could not substitute his view under Section 263.5. Interpretation of 'Explanation 2' to Section 263:The Tribunal analyzed 'Explanation 2' to Section 263, which expands the scope of the term 'erroneous' to include orders passed without making necessary enquiries or verifications. The Tribunal concluded that the A.O had conducted adequate enquiries and verifications, and it was not a case of lack of enquiry. The Tribunal referred to judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's judgment in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, which held that an order cannot be deemed erroneous if the A.O had adopted one of the permissible views in law.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Pr. CIT under Section 263, restoring the original assessment order passed by the A.O under Section 143(3). The Tribunal held that the A.O had conducted adequate enquiries and verifications, and the Pr. CIT could not invoke Section 263 to substitute his view. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found