Assessee is a non-banking financial company. The Assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act. Commissioner quashed assessment order and remitted matter back to Assessing Officer for a de novo adjudication as regards claim for deduction on account of provision for non-performing assets and interest rate swap on ground that Assessing Officer had not examined aforesaid two issues.\u00a0 In compliance of directions, Assessing Officer adjudicated aforesaid two issues afresh and held that expenditure were capital in nature and, consequently, disallowed same which was confirmed by Commissioner (Appeals).\u00a0 Tribunal held that\u00a0 there was no error or prejudice to interest of revenue as no deduction on account of provision for non-performing assets was allowed to assessee,\u00a0 interest rate swap was an actual loss and only net loss of Rs. 114.05 lacs after setting of gain of interest rate swap was claimed as deduction and,\u00a0 both abovementioned issues were duly examined by Assessing Officer vide questionnaire to which replies were duly furnished by assessee. Tribunal held that\u00a0\u00a0 inadequacy of enquiry by Assessing Officer with respect to certain claims would not in itself be a reason to invoke powers enshrined in section 263. When the Assessing Officer had asked for allowability of claims with respect to issues in question which was consequently, replied by assessee\u00a0 it is\u00a0 not a case where no enquiry whatsoever had been conducted by Assessing Officer with respect to claims under consideration. Tribunal quashed the revision order. High Court affirmed the order of the Tribunal. No substantial question of law. \u00a0(AY. 2002-03)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Bad debt-Provision for bad and doubtful debts-Schedule bank-Questions were asked in the course of assessment proceedings-Replies are filed-Revision is held to be not valid-No substantial question of law. [S.36(1)(viia), 260A] <\/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-46759","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-cab","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46759","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=46759"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46759\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":54920,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46759\/revisions\/54920"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=46759"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=46759"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=46759"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}