Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Magnaquest Technologies Ltd. v. DCIT (2025) 215 ITD 146 (Hyd) (Trib.)

S. 270A: Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income-Vagueness of notice was not accepted-Partly allowed the relief on quantum addition-Assessing Officer was directed to modify the order after giving effect to the order. [S. 43B, 274]

Akashdeep Cloth Centre. v. PCIT (2025) 215 ITD 597 (Pune) (Trib.)

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Excess stock-Survey-Additional income was offered-Specific queries raised by Assessing Officer and had explained that the only source of income of assessee was from business-Revision order of CIT for not invoking provision of section 115 BBE was quashed and set aside.[S. 28(i), 69, 115BBE, 133A, 143(3)]

Mamta Agarwal. v. PCIT (2025) 215 ITD 553 (Agra) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Purchase of immovable property-Below circle rate-Sale consideration and DVO-determined FMV for assessee’s share was within permissible 10 per cent variation-CBDT Circular No. 8/2018-Revision by PCIT treating variation as taxable and Circular as prospective was an unsustainable, change of opinion not supported by law-Revision order was quashed. [S.50C, 56(2)(viib), 143(3), 147]

National Payments Corporation of India. v. CIT (E) (2025) 215 ITD 350 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Charitable purpose-Objects of general public utility-Providing a platform for conducting transactions of member banks-Charging only nominal fees to recover cost of infrastructure and operations-Assessing Officer, after making specific inquiries, allowed exemption under section 11-Revision order was quashed and set aside.[S. 2(15), 11, 12, Companies Act, 1956, S. 25]

Pharmanza Herbal (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2025) 215 ITD 273 (Ahd) (Trib.)

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Expenditure on scientific research-DSIR’s quantification of eligible R&D expenditure in Form 3CL was mandatory-Failure to quantify the deduction-assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. [S. 35(2AB),143(3), R.6(7A)]

Vitthaldas Nathubhai Shah. v. PCIT (2025) 215 ITD 77 (Ahd) (Trib.)

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Donation to political party-Bogus donation-Kisan Party of India-Allowed deduction after verifying supporting documents and evidence-No direct incriminating material against assessee-Revision order was quashed.[S.80GGC, 132]

Kesar Buildcon (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2025) 215 ITD 1 (Ahd) (Trib.)

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limited scrutiny-Deemed dividend-Assessing Officer passed assessment order in accordance with limited scrutiny assessment and did not make inquiries on issue of amount received by assessee company as loan from another company which was outside scope of CASS selection-Order cannot be treated as erroneous-Revision order was quashed-Tribunal also held that the deemed dividend can be taxed only in hands of shareholder of lending company, and not in hands of concern in which such shareholder is interested. [S. 2(22)(e), 143(3)]

ITO v. Bhoomi Classic Co-op HSG. Soc. Ltd.(Mum) (Trib.)(UR)

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Deduction-Rectification application of revenue was dismissed. [S. 80P (2)(d)]

Attivo Protezione (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2025) 215 ITD 463 (SMC) (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 254(1): Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Delay of 1370 days-Reasons for delay unexplained-Delay was not condoned.[S. 253]

Axiomatic iTech (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2025) 215 ITD 625 (Ahd) (Trib.)

S. 251 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Powers-Expenditure on scientific research-Ex parte order-Matter was remitted back to CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication.[S. 35(1)(ii), 250, 254(1)