| The Tax Publishers2021 TaxPub(DT) 3360 (Mum-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 263 Section 28(iv)
Waiver of loan amount by joint promoters by way of corporate guaratee for strengthening net worth was capital receipt. Note II to Sch. XIIIB of Balance Sheet was very much examined by AO while framing assessment and after going through relevant balance sheet, profit and loss acount, audit report and notes thereon. AO had taken a plausible view. Accordingly, it could not be said that there was no application of mind by AO and, therefore, assessment order could not be termed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
|
Revision under section 263 - Erroneous and prejudicial order - AO not having made addition towards waiver of loan under section 28(iv) -
CIT treated order passed by AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue on the ground of AO having made no addition under section 28(iv) as regards waiver of loan of Rs. 5,10,83,475 by joint promoters by way of corporate guarantee for strengthening net worth. Held Waiver of loan amount by joint promoters by way of corporate guaratee for strengthening net worth was capital receipt. Note II to Sch. XIIIB of balance-sheet was very much examined by AO while framing assessment and after going through relevant balance sheet, profit and loss acount, audit report and notes thereon. AO had taken a plausible view. Accordingly, it could not be said that there was no application of mind by AO and, therefore, assessment order could not be termed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
Supported by:CIT v. Anil Kumar (2010) 335 ITR 83 (Del) : 2010 TaxPub(DT) 1573 (Del-HC), Vikas Polymer (2010) 341 ITR 537 (Del) : 2010 TaxPub(DT) 2189 (Del-HC) and Mahindra and Mahindra (2003) 261 ITR 501 (Bom-HC) : 2003 TaxPub(DT) 995 (Bom-HC).
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2004-05
IN THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH
N.K. BILLAIYA, A.M. & AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.
Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. CIT (A)
ITA No. 3899/Mum/2009
18 June, 2021
In favour of assessee.
Appellant by: Anil Bhalla, CA
Respondents by: Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
N.K. Billaiya, A.M.
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) - 8, Mumbai dated 25-3-2009 framed under section 263 of the Income tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'The Act' for short].
2. The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the learned CIT erred both on facts and on law in passing an order under section 263 of the Act without jurisdiction on a mistaken belief that order passed under section 143(3) of the Act was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.
3. Before proceeding further, we must understand the factual background.
4. Vide Order, dated 22-12-2006, the assessing officer framed assessment under section 143(3) of the Act which was assailed before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who decided the appeal vide Order, dated 20-3-2009. Subsequently, assuming jurisdiction under section 148 of the Act, the assessing officer issued notice under section 16-3-2009. On 17-3-2009, the learned CIT assumed jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act by issuing following Notice, dated 17-3-2009 :--
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|