NCLAT: Can’t Dismiss Restoration App. if Filed in 30 Days from Date of Dismissal of Original App.  ||  Delhi HC: Communication between Parties through Whatsapp Constitute Valid Agreement  ||  Delhi HC Seeks Response from Govt. Over Penalties on Petrol Pumps Supplying Fuel to Old Vehicles  ||  Centre Notifies "Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Rules, 2025"  ||  Del. HC: Can’t Reject TM Owner’s Claim Merely because Defendant Could have Sought Removal of Mark  ||  Bombay HC: Cannot Treat Sole Director of OPC, Parallelly with Separate Legal Entity  ||  Delhi HC: Can Apply 'Family of Marks' Concept to Injunct Specific Marks  ||  HP HC: Can’t Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree for Mere Irregularity  ||  Cal. HC: Order by HC Bench Not Conferred With Determination by Roster is Void  ||  Calcutta HC: Purchase Order Including Arbitration Agreement to Prevail Over Tax Invoice Lacking it    

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