“Section 131(1)(d)”
The decision most relied on for Section 131(1)(d) is Ganga Iron & Steel Trading Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (135 Taxmann.com 244), cited in 45 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 131(1)(d)
A notice imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it shows non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer regarding the specific grounds for levying the penalty.
A revision order under Section 263 is valid only if the Commissioner believes the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The assessee's actions to establish bona fides are relevant to this determination.
The Commissioner can only invoke revisionary powers under section 263 if the Assessing Officer's order is erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, requiring a prima facie finding on merits.
Revision under section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the Assessing Officer did not conduct exhaustive enquiries. Jurisdiction under section 263 is not for re-examining the assessment process or for conducting further enquiries if the initial assessment was based on the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer.
Where a question of law or fact was decided in an assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year, the Tribunal is justified in relying on that earlier decision for a subsequent year, even if res judicata doesn't strictly apply.
The Assessing Officer's addition under section 68 is deleted if the Commissioner (Appeals) has thoroughly examined the facts and material on record and judicial pronouncements.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) considers arguments regarding additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, concerning loans and share application money, and arguments against such additions on merits. The tribunal's decisions often rely on the findings of lower authorities, including the Assessing Officer (AO) and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)).
