TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 714
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-21. 2. The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction conferred upon him by the provisions of Section 263 of the Act and further erred in holding that the assessment order dated 22/09/2022 framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act is erroneous inasmuch as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the return for the year under consideration was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS for the following reasons:- "1. Non-compliance to Income Computation & Disclosure Standards 2. Deductees have claimed tax deduction against payments other than salary payments by a TAN in their ITRs, however, correspondin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../Mum/2025. We find that the impugned issue is a highly debatable issue and such highly debatable issue cannot be subject matter of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. 7. Even if no specific enquiry was made by the AO during the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings, but being a debatable issue it is outside the purview of revisionary powers u/s 263 of the Act. At this stage, it is relevant to note the following observations of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in PCIT vs. Postal Gujarat Power Ltd, reported in (2019) 10 taxmann.com 418 (Bom):- "9. The Revenue may be correct in contending that, the Assessing Officer had not carried out detailed enquiries with respect to this claim of assessee. However, this by i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... but the claim itself is legally tenable, would be judicial in exercising and set aside the assessment? The answer may be in the negative" 8. The above mentioned binding observations of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court are sufficient for not sending the matter back to the file of the AO for verification as it would be a futile exercise as the issue has already been decided in several judicial decisions by the Co-ordiante Benches in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Considering the facts of the case in totality, in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (supra), the assessment order dated 22/09/2022 is restored and that of the ld. PCIT is set aside. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was completed on 22.09.2022 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.94,38,06,740/- after disallowing claim of education cess amounting to Rs.90,48,460/ -. 2. From perusal of the financials of the assessee company, it is noticed that the assessee had debited an amount of Rs. 1,68,54,000/- as expenditure on CSR activities in its profit and loss account. The same amount was added back while computing taxable income as the same is not allowable u/s. 37(1) of the Act. However, the assessee has claimed 50% i.e. Rs.84,47,000/- of the CSR Expenditure as deduction u/s. 80G of the Income Tax Act on above CSR expenditure, which was not in order. It is seen from the assessment records that the assessi....