{"id":49440,"date":"2024-12-28T19:12:27","date_gmt":"2024-12-28T13:42:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/pcit-v-spml-infra-ltd-2024-300-taxman-366-240-dtr-41-sc-editorial-pcit-v-spml-infra-ltd-2024-164-taxmann-com-504-calhc\/"},"modified":"2024-12-28T19:12:27","modified_gmt":"2024-12-28T13:42:27","slug":"pcit-v-spml-infra-ltd-2024-300-taxman-366-240-dtr-41-sc-editorial-pcit-v-spml-infra-ltd-2024-164-taxmann-com-504-calhc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/pcit-v-spml-infra-ltd-2024-300-taxman-366-240-dtr-41-sc-editorial-pcit-v-spml-infra-ltd-2024-164-taxmann-com-504-calhc\/","title":{"rendered":"PCIT v. SPML Infra Ltd. (2024) 300 Taxman 366 \/240 DTR 41 (SC) Editorial : PCIT v. SPML Infra Ltd. (2024) 164 taxmann.com 504 (Cal)(HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Assessing Officer computed capital gain in respect of sale of an asset.\u00a0 PCIT invoked section 263, claiming Assessing Officer passed assessment order without necessary enquiries and verifications, thus making it erroneous. The Tribunal allowed the appeal by the assessee, noting that the AO had\u00a0 made the necessary enquiries and verifications regarding the computation of capital gain during the assessment process. It held that the PCIT&#8217;s claim that the AO did not conduct due enquiry was factually incorrect, and his method of computation would be prejudicial to the revenue\u2019s interest. High Court affirmed the order of the Tribunal.\u00a0 SLP of Revenue is dismissed as the delay of 484 days is not explained. \u00a0(AY. 2017-18)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-<br \/>\nCapital gains-High Court affirmed the quashing of revision order-SLP of Revenue is dismissed, delay of 484 days is not explained.[S. 45,  Art. 136] <\/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-49440","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-cRq","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49440","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=49440"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49440\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":49441,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49440\/revisions\/49441"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=49440"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=49440"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=49440"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}