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
  • 2026
  • 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
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    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 rules in favor of assessee, quashes CIT's order under Section 263.</h1> The Tribunal quashed the CIT's order under Section 263, ruling that the AO's assessment was not erroneous or prejudicial to Revenue. The AO's inquiries ... Erroneous And Prejudicial Order Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction under Section 263.2. Opportunity of being heard.3. Examination of gifts.4. Taxability of gifts as income from other sources.5. Incorrect facts and findings.6. Principles of natural justice.7. Merger of assessment order with appellate authorities.Detailed Analysis:Jurisdiction under Section 263:The assessee challenged the jurisdiction of the CIT under Section 263, arguing there was no finding that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The Tribunal found that the AO had made detailed inquiries and accepted the gifts based on cogent reasons and evidence. The AO's decision was made after discussions with higher authorities, including the CIT. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of Revenue, thus CIT's invocation of Section 263 was invalid.Opportunity of Being Heard:The assessee claimed that the CIT passed the order under Section 263 without giving an opportunity of being heard. However, this ground was not pressed during the hearing, and thus the Tribunal did not address it in detail.Examination of Gifts:The CIT argued that the AO did not examine the gifts from Mr. O.P. Khadaria and Mr. Ajay Agarwal properly. The Tribunal found that the AO had indeed examined the gifts thoroughly, including recording statements from the donors and verifying their financial statuses. The AO provided detailed reasons for accepting the gifts, which were supported by documentary evidence. The Tribunal held that the AO's inquiries were adequate, and the CIT's claim was unfounded.Taxability of Gifts as Income from Other Sources:The CIT held that the gift of Rs. 1,00,000 from Mr. O.P. Khadaria should be treated as income from the profession of politics. The Tribunal found that the AO had considered the relationship between the donor and the assessee, and the financial capability of the donor before accepting the gift. Similarly, the gift from Mr. Ajay Agarwal was accepted after verifying the source of funds and the donor's financial status. The Tribunal held that the AO's decision was justified and did not warrant revision under Section 263.Incorrect Facts and Findings:The assessee argued that the CIT recorded incorrect facts and findings. The Tribunal noted that the AO had made detailed inquiries and documented his findings in the office note, which was not disputed by the Revenue. The Tribunal found that the AO's acceptance of the gifts was based on substantial evidence and proper inquiries, contrary to the CIT's claims.Principles of Natural Justice:The assessee contended that the CIT's order violated the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found that the AO had conducted a thorough examination of the gifts and provided reasons for his decisions. The CIT's order, which attempted to substitute his judgment for that of the AO, was found to be unjustified.Merger of Assessment Order with Appellate Authorities:The assessee argued that the assessment order had merged with the orders of appellate authorities, making the CIT's revision under Section 263 invalid. The Tribunal disagreed, noting that the specific issue of the two gifts was not addressed in the appellate proceedings. Therefore, the theory of merger did not apply in this case.Conclusion:The Tribunal quashed the CIT's order under Section 263, holding that the AO's assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. The AO had conducted proper inquiries and provided valid reasons for accepting the gifts. The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee in part, rejecting the grounds related to the issuance of show-cause notice, the theory of merger, and the explicit mention of the order being erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found