“Section 133(1)(d)”
The decision most relied on for Section 133(1)(d) is Gurpal Singh v. ITO (159 ITD 797), cited in 58 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 133(1)(d)
Mere cash deposits in a bank account, without the Assessing Officer's independent application of mind on reasons to believe, are not sufficient grounds to invoke jurisdiction under Section 147 for reassessment proceedings.
The Assessing Officer cannot question the correctness of the certificate issued by the prescribed authority for claiming weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) for scientific research expenditure. The deduction is limited to the amount approved and certified by the competent authority.
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.
A revised assessment order cannot direct the Assessing Officer to undertake an exercise that should have been completed during the original assessment, as this is not legally permissible.
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 Department of Scientific and Industrial Research's (DSIR) role, prior to July 1, 2016, was limited to approving R&D facilities, not the expenditure incurred, even if specific forms were not issued.
The Assessing Officer's failure to consider an assessee's objections before passing an order under Section 148A(d) violates natural justice and mandatory procedures under Section 148A.
