- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
ITAT: Change of Opinion not permissible to invoke Revisional Jurisdiction
ITAT: Change of Opinion not permissible to invoke Revisional Jurisdiction In a recent ruling by the Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), the court held that a mere change in opinion cannot warrant invoking the revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment year 2015-16 was the year in which the assessee filed a return of...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
ITAT: Change of Opinion not permissible to invoke Revisional Jurisdiction
In a recent ruling by the Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), the court held that a mere change in opinion cannot warrant invoking the revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The assessment year 2015-16 was the year in which the assessee filed a return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 18,98,080/- and agricultural income of Rs. 54,41,480/- which had been accepted via a scrutiny assessment made under section 143(3) of the Act on 22nd November, 2017. In examining the assessment records, the ld. Pr. CIT noted the following errors in the order of the Assessing Officer that the Assessing Officer had failed to determine if the claim for agricultural expenses was proportionate to the agricultural income.
Having allowed the assessee's appeal, ITAT Vice President Rajpal Yadav and Accountant Member Annapurna Gupta found that the ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in M/s Sitaram J Gavli, Silvasa vs. Income Tax Officer held that in cases in which revisionary powers were exercised to direct detailed inquiries on agricultural expenses incurred, the AO was not entitled to revise under section 263 as he had accepted revenue from agricultural expenditures and that this was merely a change of opinion for which revisionary powers cannot be exercised.
Considering the above, we are convinced that there is no error in the order passed by the AO as found by the Pr. CIT. Therefore, the order entered under section 263 is forcibly set aside," said the Tribunal.