Year: 2020

Archive for 2020


K. Borra Reddy v. ITO (2019) 76 ITR 78 (SN) (Hyd.)(Trib)

S. 271B : Penalty-Failure to file audit report within time-reasonable cause for delay–Audit report filed before assessment proceedings- Penalty is not warranted.

Sanjay Dattatray Kakade v. ACIT (2019) 175 DTR 1 / 70 ITR 519/198 TTJ 50 (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 271AAA : Penalty-Search initiated on or after 1st June, 2007– Retraction of statement–Filing return admitting the additional income after retraction the assessee is not entitle to exemption-No requirement of recording satisfaction for imposing penalty-Immunity from penalty– both conditions need to be satisfied. [S. 132(4)]

Anil Gupta v. ACIT (2019) 76 ITR 22 (SN) (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Long term capital loss-Bona fide clerical mistake on part of assessee same has been explained before AO-Return of income accepted and there was no loss to revenue–No concealment of income or no furnishing inaccurate particulars of income-Levy of penalty is held to be not valid. [S. 45]

Omni Lens P. Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 76 ITR 28 (SN) (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment Amount of deduction hardly makes any difference on tax liability–then penalty levied on wrongful claim of the same needs to be deleted–as it was claimed on account of human error– no mala-fide intention of the assessee. [S. 35D]

Manjeet Kaur Sran (Mrs.) v. Dy. CIT (2019) 76 ITR 57 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment-Penalty Notice bad in law-If limb under which penalty has been initiated not specified. [S. 274]

Chebolu Lakshmi (Smt.) v. ITO (2019) 76 ITR 4 (SN.) (Vishakha) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue– Limitation-Delay of more than 9 months in service of the order passed is beyond time limit allowed under the Act, hence, unsustainable-Department failed to produce evidence to show that order passed and dispatched within reasonable time-Order is held to be barred by limitation.

SPJ Hotels (P) Ltd. v. PCIT (2019) 175 DTR 30 / 69 ITR 585 / 197 TTJ 889 (Delhi)(Trib.) Supersonic Technologies (P) Ltd. v. PCIT ((2019) 175 DTR 30 / 69 ITR 585 / 197 TTJ 889 (Delhi)(Trib.) Shiv Sai Infrastructure (P) Ltd v. PCIT (2019) 175 DTR 30 //69 ITR 585/ 197 TTJ 889 (Delhi)(Trib.) Super Build well (P) Ltd v. PCIT (2019) 175 DTR 30 / 69 ITR 585 / 197 TTJ 889 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Reopening found bad in law–No revision is possible. [S. 147, 148, 254(1)]

Mohammed Salim Yusuf v. PCIT (2019) 76 ITR 70 (SN) (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue- Assessment completed by AO under section 143(3) of the Act-CIT sought revision-Tribunal held that AO had duly applied his mind by accepting the valuation method of Assessee and hence quashed revision proceedings. [S. 143(3)]

Manish Chirania v. PCIT (2019) 76 ITR 7 (SN) (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Revision based on proposal from AO impermissible-Without Application of mind-Revision not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue. [S. 143(3)]

Solitaire CHS Ltd. v. PCIT (2019) 76 ITR 59 (SN) (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Co-operative societies–Interest income derived by co-operative society from investments held with co-operative bank entitled for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act–AO had taken a possible view and hence reassessment proceeding is quashed. [S. 2(19), 80P(2)(d)]