Kerala High Court: Imposition of Unaffordable Cost is Akin to Denial of Relief  ||  SC: People Can’t be Asked to Prove Citizenship on Mere Suspicion Without Sharing Material  ||  Bombay High Court: State Government’s Decision to Hike Lease Rentals Not Arbitrary  ||  Bom. HC: State Obligated to Protect Liberty of Foreigners Coming to the Country  ||  Ker. HC: State Govt. to Form SOP for Collection of DNA Samples of Children Surrendered For Adoption  ||  SC: Court Can’t Take Cogni. of Offence Committed by Public Servant Without Following S. 19 of PC Act  ||  Karnataka HC: Illegal to Impose Condition of Furnishing Bank Guarantee While Granting Bail  ||  Allahabad High Court Makes History by Delivering Judgement in Three Languages  ||  Supreme Court: Directions Issued to States/UTs for Prevention of Overcrowding of Prisons  ||  SC: Caution Must be Exercised by Trial Court in Accepting Dock Identification of Accused Without TIP    

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Amitabh Bachchan - (Supreme Court) (11 May 2016)

Commissioner cannot usurp Department’s plausible view

Direct Taxation

View taken by Assessing Officer, so long as it is a possible view, cannot be interfered by Commissioner under Section 263 of Income Tax Act 1961.

The court ruled that the Commissioner, as revisional authority, would enter the realm of an appellate one if it chose to substitute its own view instead of the Assessing Officer’s also plausible view.

The court acquiesced to the Commissioner’s course of action, accepting that further information about expenses claimed by the Respondent was required.

In the instant case, after assessment of the Respondent’s return of income, the Commissioner of Income Tax had proposed numerous revisions in the same. Subsequently, it directed fresh assessment. The Commissioner had reasoned the initial assessment to have been erroneous and the outcome was detrimental to the Department.

Tags : INCOME TAX   EXPENSES   FURTHER INFORMATION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved