Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The AO failed to correctly compute the undisclosed income after considering the correct sale value of land as per Form 26AS. The assessee claimed that one of the lands in Form 26AS pertained to "Vaibhav Corporation Pvt. Ltd." and not to him, requiring further verification by the AO. However, the AO failed to make the correct addition u/s 68 and failed to consider the cash deposit, resulting in underassessment of income. The PCIT invoked revision proceedings u/s 263, despite the assessee providing evidence that the sale of property was done by "Vaibhav Corporation Pvt. Ltd." and not by the assessee, including the relevant Form 26AS and a letter from the Sub-Registrar confirming the same. The ITAT held that when such evidence was filed, the PCIT should have dropped the revision proceedings, as incorrect calculation of income is rectifiable u/s 154 and not by invoking Section 263. The ITAT quashed the PCIT's revision order and allowed the assessee's appeal.
The AO failed to correctly compute the undisclosed income after considering the correct sale value of land as per Form 26AS. The assessee claimed that one of the lands in Form 26AS pertained to "Vaibhav Corporation Pvt. Ltd." and not to him, requiring further verification by the AO. However, the AO failed to make the correct addition u/s 68 and failed to consider the cash deposit, resulting in underassessment of income. The PCIT invoked revision proceedings u/s 263, despite the assessee providing evidence that the sale of property was done by "Vaibhav Corporation Pvt. Ltd." and not by the assessee, including the relevant Form 26AS and a letter from the Sub-Registrar confirming the same. The ITAT held that when such evidence was filed, the PCIT should have dropped the revision proceedings, as incorrect calculation of income is rectifiable u/s 154 and not by invoking Section 263. The ITAT quashed the PCIT's revision order and allowed the assessee's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
