| |
| The Tax Publishers2023 TaxPub(DT) 4782 (Karn-HC) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 263
Where AO made any enquiry on facts of case, it could be said that he had taken a possible view as such revision under section 263 would not be justified since same did not render order passed by AO as erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue. Where view taken by AO is a 'possible view', same ought not be interfered by Commissioner under section 263 merely on ground that there could be another possible view in the matter
|
Revision under section 263 - Erroneous and prejudicial order - Possible view, whether can be taken by AO -
CIT directed AO to re-examine in respect of four issues, namely, (i) Stock compensation expense; (ii) Treatment of state taxes paid in USA; (iii) Foreign remittance without deducting Tax Deducted at Sources; and (iv) Lease of Sasken brand to related parties free of cost. Held: ITAT had recorded that on first issue, Commissioner had misconstrued facts. On Issues No. 2, 3 and 4, AO had taken 'possible views'.
Considered: CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan (2016) 240 Taxman 221 (SC) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 2291 (SC)
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour
A.Y. : 2014-15
IN THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|