Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Nilkanth Developers v. PCIT (2021) 88 ITR 11 (SN) (Surat)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Housing projects-Principle of consistency applied to an order under section 263 of the Act as well-Revision was barred by limitation-Issue was not subject of reassessment proceedings-Assessing Officer adopting permissible view-Revision is held to be invalid. [S. 80IB(10), 263(2)]

MAD Studios Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2021) 88 ITR 37 (SN) (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Issue subject matter of appeal-Commissioner is not barred from exercising power of revision-Interest free funds-Direction was modified-Failure to deduct ta at source-Production expenses-Revision was held to be valid. [S. 36(1)(iii), 40(a)(ia), 263, Expln. 1(c)]

Khushi Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2021) 88 ITR 14 (SN) (Kol.) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Revision of reassessment order-Reassessment was farmed without issue of mandatory notice under section 143(2) of the Act-Not curable defects-Revision assessment order which was non est in law is null and void. [S. 143(2), 143(3), 147, 148, 292BB]

Grasim Industries Ltd. v. PCIT (2021) 88 ITR 47 (SN) (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Long term capital loss-Audit objection-Assessing Officer depending his view in response to audit query-Revision order is held to be not valid. [S. 143(3)]

Taj Paul Bhardwaj v. PCIT (2021)88 ITR 352 / 211 TTJ 58 (Chd.) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limited scrutiny-Revision directing the Assessing Officer to make fresh assessment on issues not subject matter of limited scrutiny – Revision is bad in law. [S. 142(1) 143(2)]

Dy. CIT v. Aluvind Architectural Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 88 ITR 421 (Mum.) (Trib.)

S. 253 : Appellate Tribunal-Monetary limits-Penalty-Exception provided in para 10(e) of Circular No. 17 of 2019 (2019) 426 ITR 106 (St), applicable only for quantum proceedings and cannot be applicable for penalty proceedings – Appeal is not maintainable. [S. 254(1), 271(1)(c)]

ITO v. Angel Cement Pvt. Ltd. (2021)88 ITR 616 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 251 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Power of enhancement-No jurisdiction to travel beyond record-Appeal against cash credits-Enhancement cannot be made for making estimate commission of 2 Per Cent of commission. [S. 68, 251(1)(a)]

Co-Operative Co. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2021)88 ITR 322 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 153C : Assessment-Income of any other person-Search-Opportunity of cross examination. Was not given-Addition is not valid-Order passed u/s. 143(3) is bad in law-Order ought to have been passed u/s. 153C. [S. 132, 143(3), 153A]

Elite Realtech Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2021) 88 ITR 401 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 153A : Assessment-Search or requisition-No incriminating material was found-Addition cannot be made merely on the basis of post dated cheques without any corroborative evidence. [S. 132]

TEK Chand v. ITO (2021) 88 ITR 392 (Chd.)(Trib.)

S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-Additional ground was admitted-Delay in filing the appeal was condoned-Sanction was mechanical, without application of mind-Order of reassessment was quashed. [S. 147,148, 151, 253, 254(1)]