GOEL EISHA CAPITALS,PUNE vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1006/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 April 202524 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in setting aside the assessment order. It found that the Assessing Officer had made inquiries and applied his mind, even if the assessment order lacked detailed discussion on every item.

What were the facts?

The assessee firm, engaged in real estate, filed its return of income. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment, making additions for differences in valuation and provision for warranty. The PCIT initiated revision proceedings under Section 263, alleging the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.

What were the issues?

Whether the PCIT was justified in exercising revisionary powers under Section 263 when the Assessing Officer had made inquiries, even if the assessment order was not exhaustive.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3),Section 132

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(13)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & MS ASTHA CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Krishna Gujarathi
For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 13.03.2024 passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Ld. PCIT (Central), Pune, relating to assessment year 2019-20. 2. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the Ld. PCIT in setting aside the order u/s 263 of the Act passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) with a direction to frame a fresh assessment order after necessary examination / verification / enquiries.

3.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee firm is engaged in the business of real estate. A search and seizure action

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 →