Select Design
You can update Firmname, Logo, Profession, Mobile, Email, Address from Profile.
Assessing Officers Error in Capital Gains Calculation
Paville Projects (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax-7
14-03-2024
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6126 OF 2021 DIARY NO. 34899 OF 2023 REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 489 OF 2024
Practiceguru Sample Posters - Pl Subscribe
Facts:
Assessee-company, engaged in garment manufacturing and export, sold its land to settle encumbrances to pay off its shareholders.
The company claimed encumbrance charges as a cost of improvement while calculating LTCGs, which was accepted by the AO.
The Commissioner invoked revisionary powers under section 263, setting aside the assessment order, as the claimed expenses did not qualify as capital expenditure, and there was no compliance with relevant tax provisions.
Decision: The SC upheld the Commissioners decision, ruling that the order passed by the AO allowing the expenses was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenues interest. It dismissed the review petition, finding no error in the earlier decision, and declined the stay application while disposing of any pending applications. The Court reiterated the Commissioners rightful exercise of jurisdiction under section 263, emphasizing the erroneous nature of the AOs decision and the serious error committed by the HC in setting aside the Commissioners order.
Decision: The SC upheld the Commissioners decision, ruling that the order passed by the AO allowing the expenses was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenues interest. It dismissed the review petition, finding no error in the earlier decision, and declined the stay application while disposing of any pending applications. The Court reiterated the Commissioners rightful exercise of jurisdiction under section 263, emphasizing the erroneous nature of the AOs decision and the serious error committed by the HC in setting aside the Commissioners order.
Practiceguru Sample Posters - Pl Subscribe
Assessing Officers Error in Capital Gains Calculation
Paville Projects (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax-7
14-03-2024
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6126 OF 2021 DIARY NO. 34899 OF 2023 REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 489 OF 2024
Practiceguru Sample Posters - Pl Subscribe
Facts:
Assessee-company, engaged in garment manufacturing and export, sold its land to settle encumbrances to pay off its shareholders.
The company claimed encumbrance charges as a cost of improvement while calculating LTCGs, which was accepted by the AO.
The Commissioner invoked revisionary powers under section 263, setting aside the assessment order, as the claimed expenses did not qualify as capital expenditure, and there was no compliance with relevant tax provisions.
Decision: The SC upheld the Commissioners decision, ruling that the order passed by the AO allowing the expenses was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenues interest. It dismissed the review petition, finding no error in the earlier decision, and declined the stay application while disposing of any pending applications. The Court reiterated the Commissioners rightful exercise of jurisdiction under section 263, emphasizing the erroneous nature of the AOs decision and the serious error committed by the HC in setting aside the Commissioners order.
Decision: The SC upheld the Commissioners decision, ruling that the order passed by the AO allowing the expenses was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenues interest. It dismissed the review petition, finding no error in the earlier decision, and declined the stay application while disposing of any pending applications. The Court reiterated the Commissioners rightful exercise of jurisdiction under section 263, emphasizing the erroneous nature of the AOs decision and the serious error committed by the HC in setting aside the Commissioners order.
Practiceguru Sample Posters - Pl Subscribe
Sample Assessing Officers Error in Capital Gains Calculation
Paville Projects (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax-7
14-03-2024
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6126 OF 2021 DIARY NO. 34899 OF 2023 REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 489 OF 2024
Practiceguru Sample Posters - Pl Subscribe
Facts:
Assessee-company, engaged in garment manufacturing and export, sold its land to settle encumbrances to pay off its shareholders.
The company claimed encumbrance charges as a cost of improvement while calculating LTCGs, which was accepted by the AO.
The Commissioner invoked revisionary powers under section 263, setting aside the assessment order, as the claimed expenses did not qualify as capital expenditure, and there was no compliance with relevant tax provisions.
Decision: The SC upheld the Commissioners decision, ruling that the order passed by the AO allowing the expenses was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenues interest. It dismissed the review petition, finding no error in the earlier decision, and declined the stay application while disposing of any pending applications. The Court reiterated the Commissioners rightful exercise of jurisdiction under section 263, emphasizing the erroneous nature of the AOs decision and the serious error committed by the HC in setting aside the Commissioners order.
Decision: The SC upheld the Commissioners decision, ruling that the order passed by the AO allowing the expenses was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenues interest. It dismissed the review petition, finding no error in the earlier decision, and declined the stay application while disposing of any pending applications. The Court reiterated the Commissioners rightful exercise of jurisdiction under section 263, emphasizing the erroneous nature of the AOs decision and the serious error committed by the HC in setting aside the Commissioners order.
Practiceguru Sample Posters - Pl Subscribe
Sample Assessing Officers Error in Capital Gains Calculation
Paville Projects (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax-7
14-03-2024
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6126 OF 2021 DIARY NO. 34899 OF 2023 REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 489 OF 2024
Practiceguru Sample Posters - Pl Subscribe
Facts:
Assessee-company, engaged in garment manufacturing and export, sold its land to settle encumbrances to pay off its shareholders.
The company claimed encumbrance charges as a cost of improvement while calculating LTCGs, which was accepted by the AO.
The Commissioner invoked revisionary powers under section 263, setting aside the assessment order, as the claimed expenses did not qualify as capital expenditure, and there was no compliance with relevant tax provisions.
Decision: The SC upheld the Commissioners decision, ruling that the order passed by the AO allowing the expenses was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenues interest. It dismissed the review petition, finding no error in the earlier decision, and declined the stay application while disposing of any pending applications. The Court reiterated the Commissioners rightful exercise of jurisdiction under section 263, emphasizing the erroneous nature of the AOs decision and the serious error committed by the HC in setting aside the Commissioners order.
Decision: The SC upheld the Commissioners decision, ruling that the order passed by the AO allowing the expenses was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenues interest. It dismissed the review petition, finding no error in the earlier decision, and declined the stay application while disposing of any pending applications. The Court reiterated the Commissioners rightful exercise of jurisdiction under section 263, emphasizing the erroneous nature of the AOs decision and the serious error committed by the HC in setting aside the Commissioners order.
Practiceguru Sample Posters - Pl Subscribe
Sample Assessing Officers Error in Capital Gains Calculation
Paville Projects (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax-7
14-03-2024
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6126 OF 2021 DIARY NO. 34899 OF 2023 REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 489 OF 2024
Practiceguru Sample Posters - Pl Subscribe
Facts:
Assessee-company, engaged in garment manufacturing and export, sold its land to settle encumbrances to pay off its shareholders.
The company claimed encumbrance charges as a cost of improvement while calculating LTCGs, which was accepted by the AO.
The Commissioner invoked revisionary powers under section 263, setting aside the assessment order, as the claimed expenses did not qualify as capital expenditure, and there was no compliance with relevant tax provisions.
Decision: The SC upheld the Commissioners decision, ruling that the order passed by the AO allowing the expenses was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenues interest. It dismissed the review petition, finding no error in the earlier decision, and declined the stay application while disposing of any pending applications. The Court reiterated the Commissioners rightful exercise of jurisdiction under section 263, emphasizing the erroneous nature of the AOs decision and the serious error committed by the HC in setting aside the Commissioners order.
Decision: The SC upheld the Commissioners decision, ruling that the order passed by the AO allowing the expenses was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenues interest. It dismissed the review petition, finding no error in the earlier decision, and declined the stay application while disposing of any pending applications. The Court reiterated the Commissioners rightful exercise of jurisdiction under section 263, emphasizing the erroneous nature of the AOs decision and the serious error committed by the HC in setting aside the Commissioners order.
Practiceguru Sample Posters - Pl Subscribe
Sample Assessing Officers Error in Capital Gains Calculation
Paville Projects (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax-7
14-03-2024
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6126 OF 2021 DIARY NO. 34899 OF 2023 REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 489 OF 2024
Practiceguru Sample Posters - Pl Subscribe
Facts:
Assessee-company, engaged in garment manufacturing and export, sold its land to settle encumbrances to pay off its shareholders.
The company claimed encumbrance charges as a cost of improvement while calculating LTCGs, which was accepted by the AO.
The Commissioner invoked revisionary powers under section 263, setting aside the assessment order, as the claimed expenses did not qualify as capital expenditure, and there was no compliance with relevant tax provisions.
Decision: The SC upheld the Commissioners decision, ruling that the order passed by the AO allowing the expenses was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenues interest. It dismissed the review petition, finding no error in the earlier decision, and declined the stay application while disposing of any pending applications. The Court reiterated the Commissioners rightful exercise of jurisdiction under section 263, emphasizing the erroneous nature of the AOs decision and the serious error committed by the HC in setting aside the Commissioners order.
Decision: The SC upheld the Commissioners decision, ruling that the order passed by the AO allowing the expenses was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenues interest. It dismissed the review petition, finding no error in the earlier decision, and declined the stay application while disposing of any pending applications. The Court reiterated the Commissioners rightful exercise of jurisdiction under section 263, emphasizing the erroneous nature of the AOs decision and the serious error committed by the HC in setting aside the Commissioners order.
Practiceguru Sample Posters - Pl Subscribe
Sample 