Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Ramachandran Bandhuvula v. ITO (2023) 103 ITR 81 (SN)(Hyd) (Trib)

S. 271D : Penalty-Takes or accepts any loan or deposit-Long term capital gains-Received cash on sale of immovable property in AY 2016-17-Deposited cash during demonetisation period-Levied penalty for contravention of S. 269SS-Deleted penalty as S. 269SS was violated in AY 2016-17 and not in AY. 2017-18.[S. 45, 269SS]

S. Manoharan v .Dy. CIT (2023)103 ITR 243 (Chennai)(Trib)

S. 270A : Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income-Concealment of income subject to conditions-search and seizure-held, AO cannot make an assumption that the assessee would not disclose income if the due date to file return has not expired based on previous record. [S. 132]

vJaibalaji Business Corporation (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (Pune) 200 ITD 58 (Pune)(Trib)

S. 270A : Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income-Addition made is estimate made by DVO-The levy of penalty is not valid .[S.43CA]

Alrameez Construction (P.) Ltd v. NFAC [2023] 202 ITD 379 (Mum) Trib.)

S. 270A : Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income-Deemed provisions-Cannot fall in the category of underreporting of income. Also pertinent for the Assessing officer alleging underreporting/misreporting of Income is to specify the limb under which penalty proceedings have been initiated. [S.43CA, 562(2)(x)]

AGS Health P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2023) 103 ITR 95 (SN)(Chennai) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
AO, without examining the matter, simply accepted the explanation of the assessee, which was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue-the issue was complicated and needed detailed verification of Accounting Standards followed & law applicable-Principal Commissioner directed the AO to verify and pass the assessment order afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity to the assessee-Held, no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Principal Commissioner.[S.92CA, 143(3)]

Moin Akhtar Qureshi v. PCIT (2023) 103 ITR 84 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Citing the possibility of multiple valid views on the assessment-Revision order is set aside.[S. 2(22)(e)]

Gopal Soundararaj (Mr.) v. PCIT (2023) 103 ITR 33 (SN) (Chennai) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-No discussion in the assessment order-Assessing Officer applied his mind during assessment proceedings-Revision order is quashed.[S. 143(3)]

Lakshmi Farms v .PCIT (2023)103 ITR 265 (Chand)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-survey-Regular books of account not maintained properly-revision of income of return revealed discrepancies-Entitle to set off the loss-Additional income-Direction is contrary to CBDT circular .[S.115BBE, 119,133A]

Kirti Diam v. PCIT (2023) 103 ITR 602 (Mum.) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
Assessment filed by the retailer approved by the AO-Purchase of lose diamonds not practical according to AO-Finding of Principal Commissioner that enquiry or verification not done not justified. [S. 143(3)]

Ruhela Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2023) 104 ITR 426 / 225 TTJ 587 (Lucknow) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
Limited scrutiny on Issue of high ratio of refund to credit of tax deducted at source-Books of accounts produced were examined on test check basis-AO even disallowed certain expenditure in assessment proceedings-Order could not be treated as erroneous. [S. 143(3)]