M/S BOSS GEARS LIMITETD,LUDHIANA vs. PR.CIT-1, LUDHIANA

ITA 153/CHANDI/2021Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 September 2026AY 2016-1714 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue. The AO had taken a plausible view on the capital gains issue, and the Pr. CIT had not established that the AO's order was unsustainable in law.

What were the facts?

The assessee's assessment order was revised by the Pr. CIT under Section 263. The revision was based on allegations that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to properly examine the sale consideration of a property and the nature of capital gains, and also failed to verify certain expenses.

What were the issues?

Whether the Pr. CIT was justified in invoking revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 when the AO's assessment order was based on a plausible view and was not demonstrably erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 144,Section 143(3),Section 44AD

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, CHANDIGARH

Before: HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

1.

By way of this appeal, the assessee assails invocation of revisionary juri iction u/s 263 by Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax- 1, Ludhiana (Pr. CIT) for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17 vide impugned order dated 30-03-2021 proposing revision of an assessment as framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] on best judgment basis u/s144 of the Act on 20-11-2018 assessing income at Rs.848.47

Lacs. In the assessment order, Ld. AO

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →