| |
| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 2165 (Del-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 263
Where during assessment proceedings, AO had requisitioned details of loans & advances received and also the loans & advances given vide notice under section 142(1). Then order passed after making due enquiries or verifciations could not be held as erroneous and prejudicial on the reasoning adopted by Pr.CIT that AO had not enquired into the claim of expenses under section 57 during assessment proceedings.
|
Revision under section 263 - Erroneous and prejudicial order - No lack of enquiry as alleged by Pr.CIT -
Assessee offered interest income under the head 'income from other sources' after claiming deduction on account of payment of interest of Rs. 12,00,000. Pr.CIT during the revisionary, proceedings under section 263 held that for allowing deduction under section 57, nexus between income earned and the expenditure incurred to earn this income was a mandatory requirement and this requirement has not been established as AO had not enquired into the claim of expenses under section 57 during assessment proceedings.Held: During assessment proceedings, AO had requisitioned details of loans & advances received and also the loans & advances given vide notice under section 142(1). Complete details had been provided by assessee to AO. Confirmation had also been obtained by AO along with details of cheques issued on account of interest payment. Details of TDS had also been filed before AO accordingly, order passed after making due enquiries or verifciations could not be held as erroneous and prejudicial.
Distinguished:CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan (2016) 384 ITR 200 (SC) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 2291 (SC) and CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd. (2012) 341 ITR 293 (Karn) : 2012 TaxPub(DT) 910 (Karn-HC).
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. :
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|