Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1161 to 1180 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT Jaipur addressed a case involving a revision u/s 263 concerning the addition u/s 68 based on a report from an investigation in Mumbai. The PCIT contended that the AO did not properly examine the issue of bogus LTCG, leading to the need for the LTCG claimed to be added to the assessee's total income. The tribunal emphasized that for u/s 263 to apply, the assessment order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. Mere loss of revenue due to the AO's decision does not automatically make the order prejudicial. The tribunal found no incorrectness in the AO's actions and concluded that the PCIT's order did not meet the requirements of u/s 263. The tribunal held that a change of opinion by the PCIT is not permissible under the law, ultimately allowing the assessee's appeal.
The ITAT Jaipur addressed a case involving a revision u/s 263 concerning the addition u/s 68 based on a report from an investigation in Mumbai. The PCIT contended that the AO did not properly examine the issue of bogus LTCG, leading to the need for the LTCG claimed to be added to the assessee's total income. The tribunal emphasized that for u/s 263 to apply, the assessment order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. Mere loss of revenue due to the AO's decision does not automatically make the order prejudicial. The tribunal found no incorrectness in the AO's actions and concluded that the PCIT's order did not meet the requirements of u/s 263. The tribunal held that a change of opinion by the PCIT is not permissible under the law, ultimately allowing the assessee's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
