Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category

Shaily Prince Goyal v. ITO ( Mum)( Trib) www.itatonline .org .

S. 68 : Cash credits – Sale of shares – Penny stock – Denial of exemption is not justified – Addition as cash credits is deleted – Estimated commission- Addition is deleted [ S. 10(38), 45, 69C ]

Manju Saran v. ITO (2023) 102 ITR 64 (Jaipur.) (Trib.)

S. 271B :Penalty-Failure to get accounts audited-No penalty to be levied when Assessee has voluntarily filed audit report though belatedly and the delay in obtaining tax audit report is on account of bona fide reasons [S.274]

Dellip Vijaykumar Kotecha v. DCIT. (2023) 102 ITR 671 (Pune)(Trib)

S. 271AAA : Penalty-Search initiated on or after 1st June, 2007-Issued notice under wrong section-Non-striking off of the irrelevant limb-Levy of penalty is bad in law.[S.153A, 271(1)(c)]

Sonpal Singh Pal Singh Saini v. ITO (2023) 102 ITR 32 (SN) (Mum.)(Trib)

S. 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-Notice-AO had not struck off the inapplicable portion as to whether the levy of penalty was for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income-Penalty is not valid.[S.274]

Ranjanben G. Kasodaria v. Dy. CIT (2023) 102 ITR 718 (Surat)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-The assessee has neither concealed the particulars of the income nor furnished such facts which lead to the furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

Harish Jain v. PCIT [2023] 221 TTJ 276 (Jaippur) (Trib)

S.263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Not for corrections, errors & mistake-No order in existence.[S.271(1)(c), 271AAB(IA)]

Kanta Rani (Smt) v. PCIT (2023) 102 ITR 49 (SN) (Chd.)(Trib.)

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Duly examined matter on mere surmise of human probability. [S. 142(1), 143(2), 143(3)]

Piyush Kumar Choubey v. P CIT (2023) 221 TTJ 17 (UO) (Raipur) (Trib)

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Assessment order which is nullity in law-Cannot be revised. [S.132A, 143(3)]

Shiva Ferric Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2023) 102 ITR 173 (Bang.)(Trib)

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Principal commissioner is not justified in initiating revision proceedings when proceedings have already declared under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. [Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, S. 8]

Surender Kumar v. ITO (2023) 102 ITR 247/ 222 TTJ 5 ( UO) (Chd)(Trib.) Sunil Kumar v. PCIT (2023) 102 ITR 247/ 222 TTJ 5 (UO) (Chd)(Trib.) Shakti Sagar Chawla v. PCIT (2023) 102 ITR 247/ 222 TTJ 5 (UO) (Chd)(Trib.)

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-commissioner taking view explanation offered by the assessee to assessing officer not satisfactory and assessing officer had failed to conduct further enquiries, revision based on audit objection is invalid. [S. 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C, 69D, 115BBE]