The family settlement was arrived between the share holders of the Company who are family members. As per the Arbitration award the family settlement was recorded between parties. As per the family settlement the building of the company\u00a0 was sold. The assessee claimed the amount paid as part of settlement\u00a0 as cost of improvement while computing the capital gains. The Assessing Officer allowed the claim. Commissioner set aside the order of the Assessing Officer. On appeal the Tribunal held that the Commissioner wrongly invoked the revision Paville Projects Pvt. Ltd v. CIT \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0(2014) \u00a035 ITR 352(Mum)) (Trib). Order of the Tribunal was affirmed by High Court,\u00a0 CIT v. Paville Projects Pvt. Ltd\u00a0 [2017] 398 ITR 603 (Bom) (HC).On appeal by the Revenue\u00a0 allowing the appeal the Court held that\u00a0 \u00a0the erroneous assessment order had resulted in loss of revenue in the form of tax. Under the circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court had committed a serious error in setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner passed in exercise of powers under section\u00a0263\u00a0of the Act. \u00a0The Court observed that if due to an erroneous order of the\u00a0 Income -tax Officer, the Revenue is losing tax lawfully\u00a0 payable by person, it will certainly be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The order passed by the Commissioner in exercise of powers under section\u00a0263\u00a0of the Act was \u00a0restored.(AY. 2007-08)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Capital gains -Cost of improvement -Paid to shareholders under Family Settlement – Discharge encumbrances-Cost of improvement -Relinquishment of rights – Assessing Officer accepting claim -Order erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue -Revision is justified- Order of High Court reversed. [S. 45, 48, 55(1)(b)] <\/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-37496","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-9KM","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37496","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=37496"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37496\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":37497,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37496\/revisions\/37497"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=37496"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=37496"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=37496"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}