Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


Anandkumar Salooja v. Dy. CIT (2024) 111 ITR 95 (SN)(Chennai)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(C) : Penalty-Concealment-Remuneration and interest on capital received from the firm as a partner-Assessing officer processed original return though the claim may be wrong-No issue as regards concealment of particulars of income, not a fit case for levy of penalty. [S.44AD]

Adinath Vasantrao Wandhekar v. ITO (2024) 111 ITR 28 (SN)/ 165 taxmann.com 288/229 TTJ 525/237 DTR 265 (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 270A:Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income-Gratuity-Claiming exemption-Public sector undertaking-Not Government-Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd-Levy of penalty is not valid.[S.10(10AA)(ii), 270A(8)]

Shail P. Shah (HUF) v. PCIT (2024)111 ITR 8 (SN)(Ahd) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limited scrutiny-Declared net profit from business more than 8 Per Cent. of total turnover-Furnished all details in the course of assessment proceedings-Revision is not justified.[S.44AD, 143(3)]

Sampark Management Consultancy LLP v. PCIT (2024)111 ITR 18 (SN)/ 230 TTJ 735/ 241 DTR 84 (Delhi) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Dividend-Allocation of expenses-Order of Assessing Officer is not erroneous-Limited scrutiny-Enquiry as to source of investment in mutual fund units neither envisaged nor called for Revision order is quashed.[S. 10(35), 142(1), 143(3)]

Linde India Ltd. v. PCIT (2024)111 ITR 91 (SN)(Kol)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Revision-Possible-Commissioner giving directions to Assessing Officer without pointing out how view taken by Assessing Officer was wrong-Revision is quashed.[S. 142(1), 143(3)]

Jai Parkash v. PCIT (2024)111 ITR 80 (SN)(Delhi)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Income from other sources-Compensation for acquisition of agricultural land-Interest on compensation-Two views possible-Revision order is quashed. [S.4, 56(2)(vii) 143(3), Land Acquisition Act, 1894,S. 28]

Bhavnaben K. Punjani (Smt (v. PCIT (2024) 206 ITD 30 (Rajkot)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Order in the name of deceased-Invalid assessment could not be revised-Revision order is quashed. [S.50C, 143(3)]

V-con Integrated Solutions P. Ltd. v. PCIT (2024) 112 ITR 118 (Chd) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limited Scrutiny-The other issues related to revision were duly scrutinised and accepted by the AO by taking into consideration full details filed by the assessee-Revision order is quashed. [S.14A, 36(1(iii), 80JJAA(b)]

SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd. v. PCIT (2024) 111 ITR 95 (Kol)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue AO conducted a proper inquiry and after proper application of mind-taking permissible view-PCIT was wrong in holding the order of AO erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. [115JB, 143(3), 144C]

Ahmed Alam Khan v. Dy. CIT (2024) 111 ITR 34 (SN) (Hyd.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-Sale of immovable property and purchase or construction of new residential property-Information required under notices, and replies submitted leaving no doubt as to the adequacy of inquiry caused by AO-No substance to conclude assessment order is erroneous-The revision order is not sustainable. [S.54]