TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 1197
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ITA No.92/RJT/2020 for Assessment Year 2015-16. (i) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in quashing the order u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act of Ld. PCIT on the basis that the impugned income was business income despite the provisions of section 68 to 69D r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act? (ii) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in quashing the order u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act of Ld. PCIT despite pendency of the SLP before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deccan Jewellers (P.) Ltd [2021] 132 taxmann.com 73 (Andhra Pradesh)? (iii) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in quashing the order u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act of Ld. PCIT contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... partners and Rs.44,85,820/- as remuneration paid to partners during the course of assessment proceedings. It is settled law that if the assessing officer has taken one of the views which is possible in law, the assessment order cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Gauhati Tribunal in the case of Abdul Hamid v. ITO [2020] 117 taxmann.com 986 (Gauhati Trib.) held that where Department had itself accepted undisclosed amount of assessee in his bank account as undisclosed "business receipts/turnover", section 115BBE would not attract. In the case of Babulal K. Daga 387 ITR 114 (Gujarat High Court), the respondent-assessee who was engaged in the business of transportation was subjected to survey proc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the case of Bajaj Sons Ltd. [2021] 128 taxmann.com 406 (Chandigarh Trib.) held that where director of assessee-company surrendered a certain sum during search, and Assessing Officer treated said sum as income from unexplained sources and invoked provisions of section 115BBE and charged tax at a higher rate, since Assessing Officer had not pointed out any unexplained credit in books of account, provisions of sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D were not attracted on surrendered amount and aforesaid surrender not being covered under provisions of sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D, provisions of section 115BBE were not attracted. The ITAT Jaipur in the case of Hari NarainGattani [2021] 123 taxmann.com 8 (Jaipur Trib.) held that where ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der section 154 was not legally tenable. Again, the ITAT Jaipur in the case of Sudesh Kumar Gupta [2020] 117 taxmann.com 178 (Jaipur - Trib.) held that where while completing assessment under section 143(3), Assessing Officer did not invoke provisions of section 69, provisions of section 115BBE which were contingent on satisfaction of requirements of section 69, could not be independently applied by invoking provisions of section 154. 5.2 In a considered view, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer had made due enquiries and was aware of the fact that assessee had disclosed the amount as "business income" in his return of income in respect of which it had claimed expenditure in relation interest/remunera....