Opportunity to furnish unsecured-loan confirmations is required before reassessment initiation; proceedings require fresh consideration after taxpayer...
Under-reporting on a first reassessment return attracts penalty, while enhanced misreporting penalty requires proof of a statutory misreporting catego...
The ITAT held that the assessee failed to explain the nature and source of investment with necessary supporting evidence. The PCIT's action invoking section 263 was in accordance with statutory provisions. While the AO should have taxed Rs. 14,93,393/- u/s 56(2)(x) and Rs. 33,18,000/- u/s 69 instead of the entire stamp duty value, the matter was set aside to the PCIT for further inquiry regarding year of purchase, purchase cost, and date-wise payments to determine the amount of investment u/s 69. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The ITAT held that the assessee failed to explain the nature and source of investment with necessary supporting evidence. The PCIT's action invoking section 263 was in accordance with statutory provisions. While the AO should have taxed Rs. 14,93,393/- u/s 56(2)(x) and Rs. 33,18,000/- u/s 69 instead of the entire stamp duty value, the matter was set aside to the PCIT for further inquiry regarding year of purchase, purchase cost, and date-wise payments to determine the amount of investment u/s 69. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4915 
