Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Mahaluxmi Realtech P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2023)108 ITR 36 (SN)(Delhi) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Failure to indicate limb under which proceedings initiated-Penalty is deleted. [S.133A]

Height Insurance Services Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2023)108 ITR 61 (SN)(Kol) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Business loss-Carry forward and set off-Pendency of appeal-Claim cannot be termed incorrect or erroneous or false —Levy of penalty is not justified.

Mun Gems v.Asst. CIT (2023)108 ITR 276 (Mum) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Purchases entered with stock register-Corresponding export-Ad-hoc estimate-Penalty levied under both limbs-Penalty is deleted.

Media Magnetic Cassettes v.ITO (2023)108 ITR 271 (Delhi) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Penalty-Notice not specifying charge-Notice not valid.[S.273B]

Saltwater Studio LLP v. NFAC (2023)108 ITR 381 (Trib) (Mum) (Trib)

S. 270A:Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income-Penalty not leviable if ingredients specified for misreporting is not established by Assessing Officer. [S.270A(9)]

Sapein Funds Ltd. v CIT (IT) (2023)108 ITR 180 (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Fund investors resident of various countries-Non-fulfilment of condition of Liable to tax-Tax Exemption by resident country does not give right to Revenue Authorities to tax income in contracting State —Derivatives-Contention of Principal Commissioner that income earned from derivatives not business income is not accepted-Revision order is quashed. [S. 2(29A),6, 10(23FE, 900, 90A]

Gagandeep Garg v. PCIT (2023)108 ITR 137 (Amritsar) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limited scrutiny assessment-Principal Commissioner issued show-cause notice entirely different from issues selected for limited scrutiny-Assessing Officer cannot go beyond reasons of limited scrutiny-Principal Commissioner cannot pass revision order on other aspects-Revision order is quashed. [S. 143(3)]

Aruna Tiwari (Smt.) v.PCIT (2023)108 ITR 40/226 TTJ 510 (Raipur) (Trib)

AEP Investments (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (IT) (2023)108 ITR 37 (Delhi)(Trib)

AEP Investments (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (IT) (2023)108 ITR 37 (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 254(2A): Appellate Tribunal-Stay-Non-Resident having no assets in India-Directed to furnish a bank guarantee covering 20 Per Cent-Recovery of outstanding demand shall remain stayed for a period of 180 days from date of this order or till disposal of appeal, whichever ever is earlier. [S. 226]

Dy. CIT v. Vintage Enterprises (2023)108 ITR 10 (SN)(Pune) (Trib)

S. 253 : Appellate Tribunal-Appeals-Memorandum of appeal-Two assessment orders-Contends are different-Matter remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) to verify and adjudicate de novo complying with principles of natural justice-Principal Chief Commissioner is directed to make a thorough enquiry.[S. 143(3), 250]