Just a moment...

Top
Help
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
×

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>PCIT's revision order under section 263 set aside as void for re-examining issues already decided by AO</h1> <h3>M/s. Ved Parkash & Sons Lumbers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Principal CIT, Karnal</h3> The ITAT Delhi held that the PCIT's revision order u/s 263 was beyond jurisdiction and void ab initio. The AO had examined all issues including share ... Revision u/s 263 - difference between ‘no enquiry’ and ‘lack of enquiry’ - HELD THAT:- All issues are share application money/share premium, transactions with related parties specified u/s 40A(2) of the Act, expenditure on account of freight and octroy/clearing and sawing, security premium reserve and verification of sundry creditors/sundry debtors were examined by Ld. AO and decided in favour of assessee in original assessment proceedings. PCIT had no where found any flaw in the documents. PCIT had not undertaken any enquiry or given reasons for coming to conclusion that assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue. Explanation 2 to section 263 of the act does not give unfettered power to Ld. PCIT to revise each and every order to re-examine the issues already examined by the AO during assessment proceedings. Therefore, the impugned order is beyond jurisdiction, bad in law and void ab initio. Consequently, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.Assessee’s appeal is allowed. Issues Involved:1. Share application money/share premium.2. Transactions with related parties specified under Section 40A(2) of the Act.3. Expenditure on account of freight and octroi/clearing and sawing.4. Security premium reserve.5. Verification of sundry creditors/sundry debtors.6. General principles regarding the invocation of Section 263 of the Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Share Application Money/Share Premium:The assessee contended that the issue of share application money/share premium was examined by the Assessing Officer (AO) during the original assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) issued a show-cause notice under Section 263, questioning the genuineness of the transactions involving share application money/share premium from three companies, which appeared to be shell companies. The PCIT did not find any flaw in the documents provided by the assessee but still set aside the assessment order for re-examination.2. Transactions with Related Parties Specified Under Section 40A(2) of the Act:The assessee argued that the transactions with related parties specified under Section 40A(2)(b) were scrutinized and allowed by the AO. The PCIT, however, issued a show-cause notice under Section 263, raising concerns about the payment of remuneration to directors and other related party transactions. The PCIT did not undertake any further enquiry but directed the AO to re-examine these transactions.3. Expenditure on Account of Freight and Octroi/Clearing and Sawing:The assessee maintained that the expenditure on freight and octroi/clearing and sawing was examined and allowed by the AO. The PCIT issued a show-cause notice under Section 263, questioning the increase in expenditure on these accounts. The PCIT did not find any specific discrepancies in the documents provided but still directed the AO to re-assess this expenditure.4. Security Premium Reserve:The assessee contended that the issue of security premium reserve was examined by the AO during the original assessment. The PCIT issued a show-cause notice under Section 263, questioning the genuineness of the security premium reserve. Despite the assessee providing all relevant documents, the PCIT did not undertake any further enquiry but directed the AO to re-examine this issue.5. Verification of Sundry Creditors/Sundry Debtors:The assessee argued that the verification of sundry creditors and sundry debtors was carried out by the AO. The PCIT issued a show-cause notice under Section 263, questioning the verification process of these accounts. The PCIT did not find any specific issues in the documents provided by the assessee but still directed the AO to re-assess these accounts.6. General Principles Regarding the Invocation of Section 263 of the Act:The assessee cited several judicial pronouncements, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, which clearly states that for the PCIT to invoke jurisdiction under Section 263, two conditions must be satisfied: the order must be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The assessee argued that the PCIT did not undertake any minimal enquiry to establish that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. The PCIT merely directed the AO to re-examine the issues without providing specific reasons or findings.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that all the issues raised by the PCIT were already examined by the AO during the original assessment proceedings. The PCIT did not find any specific flaws in the documents provided by the assessee and did not undertake any further enquiry to establish that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was beyond jurisdiction, bad in law, and void ab initio. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was allowed, and the PCIT's order was set aside.Order Pronounced:The assessee's appeal is allowed, and the order was pronounced on the 23rd day of August, 2024.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found