Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Babita Devi Kajoria v. ITO (2023) 101 ITR 17 (SN) (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Additions during reassessment-Reasons recorded for reopening assessment and additions made on different grounds. A.O. failed to prove that assessee concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income-Additions deleted-Penalty deleted.[S. 133(6), 147, 148]

Atul Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2023) 101 ITR 11 (SN) (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Denial of special deduction claimed against income from long term capital gain-No business income shown-High court decision in favour-Deduction admissible-Not a case of furnishing inaccurate particular-Penalty not leviable. [S. 80G, 80HHC, 112(2)]

TMF Holdings Ltd. v. PCIT (2023)101 ITR 423 (Mum) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-Slump sale-Exemption-Exemption denied in revision-Computation of book profits objected-Transaction not ‘Transfer’-AO conforming to legal standards to compute books of accounts-Transactions between subsidiaries not amenable to book profits computation-Revision not justified.[S. 45,47(iv), 115JB]

Surinder Kaur (Ms.) v. PCIT (2023)101 ITR 531 (Chd) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –Deposit of cash by husband of assessee-sale of plot belonging to father and amount deposited in assessee’s account-AO raising queries and after all verification accepting return of the assessee-Revision is bad in law. [S. 143(3)]

Sun Developers and Builders P. Ltd. v. PCIT (2023)101 ITR 688 (Raipur) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limited scrutiny assessment-Large share application money received against unallotted shares-AO examining and making necessary verifications-Arrived at plausible view-Revision not warranted.[S. 143(3)]

Subhadip Gandhi v. ITO (2023) 101 ITR 133 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Deposit of cash during demonetisation-Non-co-operation and noncompliance of assessee to furnish details to A.O.-Estimation of net profit at 5% by AO without any basis and without consulting any records-Revision is valid. [S. 44AD, 144]

A.K. Santhosh v. Dy. CIT (2023)101 ITR 581 (Cochin) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Best judgement assessment-Failure to serve notice under 143(2)-Invalid assessment cannot be subject matter of revision.[S. 143(2), 144].

Raghuveer Singh v. PCIT (2023)101 ITR 306 (Jaipur) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Business expenditure-Payment in cash in excess of prescribed limit-No dispute as to genuineness of transaction-Assessee taking loan from family members and making payment to sellers of land in cash-Disallowance not attracted to cash transaction for support to family members in immediate business needs-AO did not initiate penalty proceedings after due consideration-Order not prejudicial to revenue-Revision not justified. [S. 40A(3), 44AD, 269SS, 271D]

Gurcharan Singh v. PCIT (2023)101 ITR 539 (Chd) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Cash deposits during demonetisation-AO raised detailed questions and assessee filed responses-AO applied mind to facts-Order of revision quashed.

Kanta Chandak (Smt.) v. ITO (2023)101 ITR 6 (Jodhpur) (Trib) Mohan Lal Chandak v. ITO (2023)101 ITR 6 (Jodhpur) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital Gains-Exemption-Assessee given one more opportunity-Order of PCIT set aside-Matter remanded-Assessee to furnish all information. [S. 54]