Latest Income-Tax Details

For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on Income Tax
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our Income-Tax Library

The AO noticed that the fair-market value shown by the assessee for which shares issued during the year was Rs. 739/- as against the allotment of Rs. 1349/-, hence, the differential price of Rs. 610/-(1349-739) per share on 4510 shares were added u/s.56(2)(viib) of the Act. Later on the Pr.CIT exercising his jurisdictional power u/s.263 of the Act called the remand record and examined the same and he noted that the AO has not determined the correct value of the allotment of shares during the impugned assessment year. Accordingly, the ld. PCIT calculated the fair-market value by applying Rule 11UA and as per prescribed formula therein. He calculated the value of shares at Rs. 708/-. Accordingly, he observed that the AO had calculated the said price excess by Rs. 31/- per share i.e. Rs. 739-708. Accordingly, further a sum of Rs. 139810(31x4510) was to be added in the total income of the assessee, therefore, the order passed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and he also relied on manycaselawsas incorporated in his order.Feeling aggrieved from the order of the Pr.CIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Sec. 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961— Revision — Pr.CIT cannot exercise his jurisdiction if the issue was a subject matter of an appeal before the CIT(A), hence, the ld. Pr.CIT is not justified in directing the AO to modify the assessment order and accordingly, the order passed by the Pr.CIT u/s.263 is quashed - VISION HABITATE & SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED V/s PR. CIT - [2020] 28 ITCD Online 056 (ITAT-CUTTACK)