<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2022 (9) TMI 1645 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459420</link>
    <description>ITAT Mumbai held that PCIT&#039;s revision u/s 263 was improper. The tribunal ruled that transactions with related parties need not be reported in Form 3CEB as the relevant provision was omitted without saving clause, making it deemed never to have existed. Initial share allotment to foreign entity was between independent parties, not associated enterprises requiring reporting. Depreciation on goodwill acquired through slump sale was allowable per SC precedent in Smifs Securities case. PCIT exceeded jurisdiction by making conclusive findings while simultaneously remanding issues. The mandatory conditions for revision - order being both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue - were not concurrently satisfied. Appeal allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Dec 2024 18:59:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=782413" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (9) TMI 1645 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459420</link>
      <description>ITAT Mumbai held that PCIT&#039;s revision u/s 263 was improper. The tribunal ruled that transactions with related parties need not be reported in Form 3CEB as the relevant provision was omitted without saving clause, making it deemed never to have existed. Initial share allotment to foreign entity was between independent parties, not associated enterprises requiring reporting. Depreciation on goodwill acquired through slump sale was allowable per SC precedent in Smifs Securities case. PCIT exceeded jurisdiction by making conclusive findings while simultaneously remanding issues. The mandatory conditions for revision - order being both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue - were not concurrently satisfied. Appeal allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459420</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>