{"id":49919,"date":"2025-01-12T18:00:01","date_gmt":"2025-01-12T12:30:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/mafatbhai-bhikhabhai-parmar-v-pcit-2024-207-itd-316-231-ttj-85-240-dtr-338-ahd-trib\/"},"modified":"2025-01-12T18:00:01","modified_gmt":"2025-01-12T12:30:01","slug":"mafatbhai-bhikhabhai-parmar-v-pcit-2024-207-itd-316-231-ttj-85-240-dtr-338-ahd-trib","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/mafatbhai-bhikhabhai-parmar-v-pcit-2024-207-itd-316-231-ttj-85-240-dtr-338-ahd-trib\/","title":{"rendered":"Mafatbhai Bhikhabhai Parmar. v. PCIT (2024) 207 ITD 316\/231 TTJ 85\/240 DTR 338 (Ahd) (Trib.)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Assessment was completed under section 143(3) and returned income was accepted. Pr. Commissioner initiated proceeding under section 263 and held that order of Assessing Officer was erroneous and pre-judicial to interest of revenue, as certain exemptions were wrongly allowed, contrary to provisions of law, in respect of salary income. Accordingly, the assessment was set-aside to Assessing Officer with a direction to pass fresh assessment order de novo. On appeal the Tribunal held that since Assessing Officer had not conducted proper inquiries in respect of claims as made in return of income,\u00a0 order was rightly treated as erroneous and pre-judicial to interest of revenue.\u00a0 All eight cases huge difference\u00a0 was found in the salary as per per Form 16 and the salary disclosed in their respective ITR. Revision order is up held.\u00a0 (AY. 2018-19)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Salary-Perquisite-Difference in salary as per Form No.16 and salary disclosed in ITR-Amount received on VRS-The Assessing Officer had not conducted proper inquiries in respect of claims made by assesseee-Revision is held to be justified. [S.10(10C),10(10CC), 10(10B),  16, 17(2), 40(a)(v), Form No.16] <\/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-49919","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-cZ9","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49919","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=49919"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49919\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":49920,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49919\/revisions\/49920"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=49919"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=49919"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=49919"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}