{"id":46761,"date":"2024-09-22T23:32:13","date_gmt":"2024-09-22T18:02:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/pcit-v-mohak-real-estate-p-ltd-2024-298-taxman-362-336-ctr-808-delhihc\/"},"modified":"2025-09-05T18:23:43","modified_gmt":"2025-09-05T12:53:43","slug":"pcit-v-mohak-real-estate-p-ltd-2024-298-taxman-362-336-ctr-808-delhihc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/pcit-v-mohak-real-estate-p-ltd-2024-298-taxman-362-336-ctr-808-delhihc\/","title":{"rendered":"PCIT v. Mohak Real Estate (P.) Ltd. (2024) 298 Taxman 362 \/336 CTR 808\/(2025) 474 ITR 313    (Delhi)(HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Assessing Officer allowed the business expenditure t after getting the replies from the Assessee. PCIT\u00a0 cancelled assessment order and directed Assessing Officer to pass fresh assessment order. Assessing Officer passed fresh assessment order and disallowed expenditure claimed under section 37(1) and also disallowed deduction claimed under section 57. On appeal against the Revision order, the Tribunal held that\u00a0 perusal of original assessment order would clearly show it not be a case of complete absense of enquiry and Assessing Officer had sent notice under section 142(1) along with a detailed questionnaire comprising 38 questions to which replies were submitted by assessee and Assessing Officer duly applied mind to same before passing assessment order.\u00a0 Since\u00a0 the order of revision\u00a0 did not record reasons of arriving at conclusion that assessment order is\u00a0 not\u00a0 erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue. Order of CIT is set aside. High Court affirmed the order of the Tribunal.\u00a0 (AY. 2016-17)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Business expenditure-Assessing Officer has applied his mind-Order of revision set aside by the Tribunal is affirmed.  [S. 37(1), 57, 143(3), 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-46761","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-cad","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46761","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=46761"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46761\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":56415,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46761\/revisions\/56415"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=46761"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=46761"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=46761"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}