Home › Archive for Income-Tax Act › Page 1074
Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


PCIT v. Mahagun Realtors Private Limited (SC) www.itatonline .org

S. 143(3): Assessment – Order passed in the name of non-existent amalgamating entity – valid. [ Companies Act, 1956, S. 394 , 481 ]

S. 143(3): Assessment – Order passed in the name of non-existent amalgamating entity – valid. [ Companies Act, 1956, S. 394 , 481 ]

Core Metal Krafts Ltd. v. ACIT (2021) 92 ITR 379 (Chd.)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Tax audit disclosing the disallowance of expenses under section 43B-Inadvertently left out while computing the income-Penalty levied was deleted. [S. 43B]

Trio Trend Exports P. Ltd. v. PCIT (2021) 92 ITR 18 (SN) (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Tax deducted at source-Limited scrutiny assessment-Detail verified-No loss to revenue-Revision order was quashed. [S. 143(2), 143(3)]

Dada Ganapati Gur Products Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2021) 92 ITR 408 / 214 TTJ 908 (Hyd.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Share capital issue of shares at premium-Addition on presumption-Revision was held to be not valid. [S. 56(2)(viib), R. 11UA(2)(b)]

Vinayaka Microns (India) P. Ltd. v. PCIT (2021)92 ITR 5 (SN) (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Valuation report from Merchant Banker-Fair market value higher than price at which shares issued-Order not erroneous. [S. 56(2)(viib), R. 11UA(2)]

Alfa Laval Lund Ab v. CIT(IT) (2021) 92 ITR 4 (SN) / (2022) 210 DTR 313 (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Revision based on proposal of Assessing Officer recommending a revision is illegal. [S. 143(3)]

Adihemshree Financial v. PCIT (2021)92 ITR 39 (SN) (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Loss on trading of shares-Possible view-Revision is not valid-Audit objection-PCIT independently applying mind-Objection is not tenable. [S. 143(3)]

Royal Western India Turf Club v. PCIT (2021)92 ITR 624 (Mum.) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Reassessment-Revision in respect of issue not forming subject matter of reassessment-Revision order is barred by limitation. [S. 143(3), 147, 263 (2)]

Rameshwar Prasad Shringi v. PCIT (2021) 92 ITR 652 /(2022) 214 TTJ 257 / 214 DTR 369 (Jaipur) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Lack of enquiry-Cash deposits-Assessing Officer taking a reasonable view-Revision was held to be not valid. [S. 143(3)]

Karmae Garchen Trust v. JCIT (2021) 92 ITR 365 (2022) 209 DTR 361 (Chd.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limitation-No addition was made on the ground mentioned in recorded reasons-Limitation to be reckoned from date of original assessment. [S. 12AA(1)(b), 147, 148]