https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313429 The ITAT Hyderabad set aside the PCIT's revision order u/s 263 directing addition u/s 56(2)(viib). The AO had correctly not made additions as no incriminating documents were found during search proceedings u/s 153A. The PCIT's finding that the AO failed to enquire about property litigation was factually incorrect since the assessee had provided all information pursuant to s.142(1) notice. The AO had properly examined documents and obtained ACIT approval u/s 153D before passing the assessment order. The PCIT failed to specify how s.56(2)(viib) provisions applied, making the revision jurisdiction invocation incorrect. The tribunal held the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to revenue interests. en-us Wed, 22 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Apr 2024 15:43:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313429 The ITAT Hyderabad set aside the PCIT's revision order u/s 263 directing addition u/s 56(2)(viib). The AO had correctly not made additions as no incriminating documents were found during search proceedings u/s 153A. The PCIT's finding that the AO failed to enquire about property litigation was factually incorrect since the assessee had provided all information pursuant to s.142(1) notice. The AO had properly examined documents and obtained ACIT approval u/s 153D before passing the assessment order. The PCIT failed to specify how s.56(2)(viib) provisions applied, making the revision jurisdiction invocation incorrect. The tribunal held the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to revenue interests. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 22 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313429