{"id":14590,"date":"2020-12-23T11:16:34","date_gmt":"2020-12-23T11:16:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/cit-v-padmavathi-smt-2020-120-taxmann-com-187-mad-hc\/"},"modified":"2020-12-23T11:16:34","modified_gmt":"2020-12-23T11:16:34","slug":"cit-v-padmavathi-smt-2020-120-taxmann-com-187-mad-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/cit-v-padmavathi-smt-2020-120-taxmann-com-187-mad-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"CIT v. Padmavathi (Smt) ( 2020) 120 taxmann.com 187 (Mad) (HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that the Assessing Officer in his limited scrutiny has verified the source of funds noted the sale consideration and paid and the expenses incurred for stamp duty and other charges . The assessee has filed a detailed reply in the course of assessment proceedings .Based on the reply the Assessing Officer did not make any addition . The Court held that the PCIT has not dealt with the\u00a0 specific objection , but would fault the Assessing Officer for not invoking section\u00a0 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii)\u00a0\u00a0 of the Act , merely on the ground that the guidance value was higher . The guidance value\u00a0 is only an indicator\u00a0 and will not always represent the fair market value of the property , therefore the invocation of revision power was not sustainable in law . ( TC\/350\/2020 dt .6-10 -2020 )( AY 2014 -15)\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 263 : Commissioner &#8211; Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue \u2013 Assessment &#8211; Limited scrutiny case \u2013 Commissioner cannot exercise the power to look in to any issue which  the Assessing Officer Could not look at [ S.50C(2),56(2)(vii)(b)(ii),   143(3)] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14590","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-3Nk","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14590","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14590"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14590\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14591,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14590\/revisions\/14591"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14590"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14590"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14590"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}