Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The case pertains to the scope of limited scrutiny by the assessing officer regarding computation of capital gains u/s 45 and providing exemption u/s 54B of the Income Tax Act. The key points are: The assessee's case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the deduction claimed u/s 54B. However, the assessing officer exceeded jurisdiction by disallowing the fair market value claimed u/s 45 for computing capital gains, which was beyond the limited scrutiny scope. This violated CBDT instructions limiting the scrutiny scope. The assessment order u/s 143(3) became invalid as the officer traveled beyond the assigned jurisdiction of limited scrutiny. To examine aspects beyond limited scrutiny like cost of acquisition u/s 45, the assessing officer should have taken permission from higher authorities, which was not done. The limited scrutiny scope is narrow as per CBDT instructions, restricting inquiry to specified issues. Linking provisions of Section 54B with Section 48 for enhancing capital gains u/s 45 is impermissible without requisite permissions. Revenue authorities cannot travel beyond limited scrutiny issues without completing formalities for extending scrutiny scope. The assessing officer's addition on issues outside limited scrutiny reasons is invalid. The assessee's appeal is allowed as the officer exceeded jurisdiction.
The case pertains to the scope of limited scrutiny by the assessing officer regarding computation of capital gains u/s 45 and providing exemption u/s 54B of the Income Tax Act. The key points are: The assessee's case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the deduction claimed u/s 54B. However, the assessing officer exceeded jurisdiction by disallowing the fair market value claimed u/s 45 for computing capital gains, which was beyond the limited scrutiny scope. This violated CBDT instructions limiting the scrutiny scope. The assessment order u/s 143(3) became invalid as the officer traveled beyond the assigned jurisdiction of limited scrutiny. To examine aspects beyond limited scrutiny like cost of acquisition u/s 45, the assessing officer should have taken permission from higher authorities, which was not done. The limited scrutiny scope is narrow as per CBDT instructions, restricting inquiry to specified issues. Linking provisions of Section 54B with Section 48 for enhancing capital gains u/s 45 is impermissible without requisite permissions. Revenue authorities cannot travel beyond limited scrutiny issues without completing formalities for extending scrutiny scope. The assessing officer's addition on issues outside limited scrutiny reasons is invalid. The assessee's appeal is allowed as the officer exceeded jurisdiction.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
