https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774699 The Calcutta HC upheld the Tribunal's decision setting aside the PCIT's order under Section 263. The Court held that PCIT incorrectly invoked Section 263 jurisdiction at the AO's instance, which is impermissible. Regarding Section 56(2)(x) applicability on leasehold land acquisition, the Court found the provision did not apply as the agreement predated its insertion (effective 1.4.2017). The assessee acquired property under government incentives with 100% reimbursement, negating any benefit from lower valuation. The property was scientifically valued by a registered valuer and required substantial development costs. On Section 43B disallowance for provision reversal, the Court noted PCIT failed to consider the assessee's explanation that reversing previously disallowed provisions would constitute impermissible double addition. The PCIT's order demonstrated non-application of mind and factual incorrectness. The revenue's appeal was dismissed. en-us Wed, 09 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Jul 2025 17:34:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774699 The Calcutta HC upheld the Tribunal's decision setting aside the PCIT's order under Section 263. The Court held that PCIT incorrectly invoked Section 263 jurisdiction at the AO's instance, which is impermissible. Regarding Section 56(2)(x) applicability on leasehold land acquisition, the Court found the provision did not apply as the agreement predated its insertion (effective 1.4.2017). The assessee acquired property under government incentives with 100% reimbursement, negating any benefit from lower valuation. The property was scientifically valued by a registered valuer and required substantial development costs. On Section 43B disallowance for provision reversal, the Court noted PCIT failed to consider the assessee's explanation that reversing previously disallowed provisions would constitute impermissible double addition. The PCIT's order demonstrated non-application of mind and factual incorrectness. The revenue's appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 09 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774699