NCLAT: Consideration of Debt Restructuring by Lenders Doesn’t Bar Member from Initiating Proceedings  ||  Delhi High Court: In Matters of Medical Evaluation, Courts Should Exercise Restraint  ||  Delhi HC: Any Person in India Has Right to Legally Import Goods from Abroad and Sell the Same  ||  Delhi HC: Waiver to Section 12(5) of Arbitration Act to be Given Once Tribunal is Constituted  ||  Supreme Court Has Asked States to Regularise Existing Court Managers  ||  SC: Union & States to Create Special POSCO Courts on Top Priority  ||  SC Upholds Authority of CERC to Award Compensation for Delays  ||  SC: Arbitral Tribunal Has Discretion to Include in Sum Awarded, Interest at Rate as it Deems Reasonab  ||  SC: Cannot Use Article 142 to Frame Guidelines on Judicial Recusal  ||  SC: Satisfaction Recorder in One EP Won’t Affect Subsequent EPs for Future Breaches    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved