Back
BHARGAV D. KARIA, MAUNA M. BHATT
Surat Trade And Mercantile Limited – Appellant
Versus
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Surat 1 – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tushar Hemani with learned advocate Mr. Vaibhavi Parikh for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Snaghani for Kalpana K. Raval for the respondent.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent.
3. Having regard to the controversy which is in narrow compass with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.
4. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.03.2024 passed by the respondent No.1-Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat-I under section 264 of the Income Tax Act,1961 [for short ‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year 2021-2022.
5. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed return of income for A.Y. 2021-2022 on 18.02.2022 declaring total income of Rs. 14,30,22,235/-.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that the person, who was responsible for filing return of income, forgot to claim ‘Long Term Capital Loss’ (for short ‘LTCG’) arising on account of extinguishment
The court ruled that the Commissioner must consider the merits of a revision application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and the inclusion of all rele....
The court emphasized the Commissioner's obligation to consider the merits of a revision application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, especially in cases of technical errors affecting tax clai....
The court established that the powers under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act are broad enough to allow revisions against intimation under Section 143(1), emphasizing the importance of substantial ju....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Commissioner should consider the sufficient cause for the delay in preferring the application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, esp....
The court established that the Commissioner has the authority to rectify inadvertent mistakes in tax assessments under Section 264, even after the time limit for revised returns has expired.
Revision u/s 263 invalid where assessment after detailed enquiry on debatable penny stock LTCG issue; s.68 inapplicable to screen-based trading; mere change of opinion or different view in other case....
The court established that an intimation under Section 143(1) can be treated as an order for revision under Section 264, emphasizing the assessing authority's duty to consider refund claims based on ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act can only be invoked when the order is both erroneous and prejudicial to th....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
