Revenue authority mandates using scheme-specific reversal procedures, not revising original entries, for instrument-based trade/customs benefits effec...
The ITAT upheld the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under s.263 of the I.T. Act, finding the assessing officer's acceptance of claimed long-term capital gains purportedly exempt under s.10(38) to be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue because he failed to verify crucial transactional particulars - mode of trade, dematerialization and debit/credit entries in the taxpayer's demat account - before allowing exemption on penny-stock transactions. The Tribunal endorsed that s.263 may be invoked even where facts are disclosed or issues are debatable if the AO did not examine them as per law, and consequently dismissed the taxpayer's appeal.
The ITAT upheld the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under s.263 of the I.T. Act, finding the assessing officer's acceptance of claimed long-term capital gains purportedly exempt under s.10(38) to be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue because he failed to verify crucial transactional particulars - mode of trade, dematerialization and debit/credit entries in the taxpayer's demat account - before allowing exemption on penny-stock transactions. The Tribunal endorsed that s.263 may be invoked even where facts are disclosed or issues are debatable if the AO did not examine them as per law, and consequently dismissed the taxpayer's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
