{"id":52672,"date":"2025-04-05T11:13:54","date_gmt":"2025-04-05T05:43:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/daffodills-pharmaceuticals-ltd-v-pcit-2023-157-taxmann-com-195-37-nypttj-1306-2024-227-ttj-870-239-dtr-247-delhitrib\/"},"modified":"2025-04-05T11:13:54","modified_gmt":"2025-04-05T05:43:54","slug":"daffodills-pharmaceuticals-ltd-v-pcit-2023-157-taxmann-com-195-37-nypttj-1306-2024-227-ttj-870-239-dtr-247-delhitrib","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/daffodills-pharmaceuticals-ltd-v-pcit-2023-157-taxmann-com-195-37-nypttj-1306-2024-227-ttj-870-239-dtr-247-delhitrib\/","title":{"rendered":"Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. PCIT (2023) 157 taxmann.com 195 \/ 37 NYPTTJ 1306 \/(2024) 227 TTJ 870 \/ 239 DTR 247 (Delhi)(Trib)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The Assessment was reopened the AO was satisfied with the explanation given by the assess regarding various issues raised by him and\u00a0 passed the order. The PCIT passed the revisional order\u00a0 on the ground that the AO\u00a0 has not carried out proper verification. On appeal the Tribunal held that\u00a0 AO having called for the details from the assessee and duly framed the reassessment after coming to the conclusion that there was no justification for making any addition as regar the issues raised in reassessment, Principal CIT was not justified in invoking his revision jurisdiction under s. 263 and directing the AO to carry out further enquiry as regards certain issues which were not subject-matter of the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment. (AY. \u00a02012-13)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Reassessment-Lack of proper enquiry-Issues not subject-matter of reassessment-Issue which is not subject matter of reassessment, Commissioner cannot direct the Assessing Officer to carry out the enquiry as suggested by the Commissioner. [S. 37(1), 40A(2)(vi), 40A(2)(b),  147, 148]<\/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-52672","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-dHy","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52672","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=52672"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52672\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":52673,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52672\/revisions\/52673"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=52672"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=52672"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=52672"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}