Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Balvinder Kumar v. PCIT (2021) 187 ITD 454 / 212 TTJ 391/ 203 DTR 155 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-limited scrutiny-No jurisdiction to go beyond reason for which the case was selected for limited scrutiny-Revision to consider other aspects is held to be without jurisdiction. [S. 143(3)]

Lokesh M. v. PCIT (2021) 187 ITD 342 (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-On the date of transfer more than one residential house-Deduction allowed without verification-Revision order was set aside and directed the AO to pass the order in accordance with law. [S. 54, 54F]

Provimi Animal Nutrition India Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2021) 187 ITD 214 / 85 ITR 9 (SN) (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Non furnishing of approval-Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 35(2AB), R. 6(7A)(b)]

Gunjan Garg v. JCIT (2021) 187 ITD 467 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Short term capital gain-Settlement Commission-Issue considered by the Settlement Commission-Revision order will be without jurisdiction. [S. 45, 245C(1), 245D(4), 245I]

Agro Tech Foods Ltd. v. DCIT (2021) 187 ITD 763 / 211 TTJ 715/ 201 DTR 297 (Hyd.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Order of Transfer pricing Officer-Part of assessment record-Can be revised. [S. 92CA]

Peerless General Finance & Investment Company Ltd. v. DCIT (2021) 87 ITR 281 / 211 TTJ 823 / 203 DTR 103 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Order of Assessing Officer was in consonance with the view taken by the Tribunal, revision order was quashed. [S. 2(14), 2(29A)(2)(47), 251]

Altmash Exports v. PCIT (2021) 87 ITR 22 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-remuneration to working partners-as per partnership deed, remuneration is paid as per the provisions of s. 40(b)(v) and taxed at 30% in the hands of individual partner, same as the assessee firm-Assessment order framed is not erroneous and there is no prejudice to the interest of revenue. [S. 40(b)(v)]

Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2021) 187 ITD 488 (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 254(2A) : Appellate Tribunal-Stay-Paid more than 51 percent of disputed tax-Stay granted. [S. 201(1), 254(1)]

Dy.CIT v. Sanjay Singal (2021) 87 ITR 468/(2022) 217 TTJ 18 (Chd.)(Trib.) Dy.CIT v. Aarti Singal (Smt.) (2021) 87 ITR 468 / (2022) 217 TTJ 18(Chd.)(Trib.)

S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-No power to review its own order.

Solaron Sustainability Services Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (CPC) TDS (2021) 87 ITR 28 (SN) (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Delay in filing an appeal before CIT (A)-Wrong advice-Delay of more than 1213 days was condoned-Remanded to the office of CIT (A) to decide on merit. [S. 234E, 250]