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 Invalidates Tax Order, Upholds Reassessment |</h1> <h3>Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd. C/o Mehra & Co. Chartered Accountants Versus PCIT Ghaziabad</h3> Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd. C/o Mehra & Co. Chartered Accountants Versus PCIT Ghaziabad - [2025] 129 ITR (Trib) 63 (ITAT [Del]) Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.2. Validity of the reassessment order dated 29-12-2019.3. Allegations of involvement in the NRHM Scam.4. Difference between turnover and bank credits.5. Examination of Section 40A(2)(b) transactions.6. Allowability of depreciation on a residential flat.7. Compliance with principles of natural justice.Summary:1. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act:The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) assumed jurisdiction under Section 263, considering the reassessment order dated 29-12-2019 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Tribunal held that the PCIT can exercise such power only if the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's observation in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. PCIT, emphasizing that both conditions must be satisfied for the PCIT to exercise jurisdiction under Section 263.2. Validity of the reassessment order dated 29-12-2019:The reassessment was initiated based on discrepancies noted by the Investigation Wing, including a significant difference between turnover and bank credits. The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer (AO) had carried out an enquiry on the issues raised in the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment and accepted the returned income. The Tribunal held that the PCIT's direction to reframe the assessment order was unwarranted and beyond the scope of jurisdiction under Section 263.3. Allegations of involvement in the NRHM Scam:The PCIT referred to judgments from the Allahabad High Court involving the assessee's alleged participation in the NRHM scam. The Tribunal noted that these judgments were not part of the assessment records at the time of reassessment and that the AO is required to go through records in accordance with reasons recorded for reopening. The Tribunal found the PCIT's reliance on these judgments to be contrary to facts and not within the AO's scope during reassessment.4. Difference between turnover and bank credits:The PCIT highlighted a discrepancy of Rs. 12,98,24,582/- between turnover and bank credits, which the AO allegedly failed to examine thoroughly. The Tribunal held that the AO had satisfied himself with the correctness of the details provided by the assessee and found no necessity for any addition. The Tribunal quashed the PCIT's direction for further enquiry on this issue.5. Examination of Section 40A(2)(b) transactions:The PCIT argued that the AO did not verify the commission payments falling under Section 40A(2)(b). The Tribunal noted that this issue was not part of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, and thus, the AO was not required to carry out further enquiry on this matter.6. Allowability of depreciation on a residential flat:The PCIT contended that the AO did not verify the claim of depreciation on a residential flat, which is not allowable. The Tribunal held that this issue was also not part of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment and therefore beyond the AO's scope during reassessment.7. Compliance with principles of natural justice:The assessee argued that the PCIT's actions violated principles of natural justice. The Tribunal emphasized that the PCIT's findings were contrary to the material on record and that the AO is not expected to carry out enquiries beyond the issues raised in the reasons for reopening the assessment.Conclusion:The Tribunal quashed the order passed by the PCIT under Section 263, stating that the pre-requisite conditions for exercising jurisdiction were not satisfied. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found