Bombay High Court: ‘GIRNAR’ a Well Known Trademark in India  ||  Kerala HC: Criminal Courts of District Judiciary Cannot Recall their Earlier Orders  ||  Madras HC: Only ‘Preponderance of Probability’ Required in Disciplinary Proceedings  ||  Raj HC: Non-Disclosure of Information Wasn’t a Ground for Disqualification Before 2015 Amendment Act  ||  Bom. HC: Workers in Statutory Canteens are Principal Employer’s Employees  ||  Supreme Court: NCLAT Cannot Use its ‘Inherent Powers’ to Subvert Legal Provisions  ||  Supreme Court: NCLAT Cannot Use its ‘Inherent Powers’ to Subvert Legal Provisions  ||  SC Refuses to Mark Presence of Advocate Who Did Not Argue the Matter  ||  SC Sets Aside HC’s Decision to Accept Aadhaar Card as a Proof of Date of Birth  ||  SC Permits Candidate with Blindness to Attend Interview for Selection of Civil Judges in Rajasthan    

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