Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Chhattisgarh State Beverages Corporation Limited v. PCIT (2023) 221 TTJ 427(Raipur)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Amounts not deductible-Since the provisions of section 40(a)(iib) does not contemplate tax and VAT does not fall within the ambit of “fee” or “charge”, section 40(a)(iib) cannot be attracted in respect of expenditure by way of VAT. Accordingly, the order of the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) allowing assessee’s claim for deduction of expenditure by way of VAT cannot be regarded as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in terms of section 263. [S. 40(a)(iib), 143(3)]

Surya Hatchery (Earlier Known as M/S Neelkanth Breeding Farm) v. PCIT (2023) 102 ITR 186/ 221 TTJ 567 (Chd) (Trib) Neelkant Hatcheries v.PCIT (2023) 102 ITR 186/ 221 TTJ 567 (Chd) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Survey-Additional income-Revision order is set aside.[S.143(3)]

Shri Venkateshwara Educational Institute v. CIT (E) (2023) 102 ITR 45 (SN) /200 ITD 193 (Kol) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Educational Institution –Revision order is set aside. [S. 10(23C)(iiiad) 12A, 12AA, 143(3)]

Harish Jain v. PCIT (2023)102 ITR 84 / 221 TTJ 276 (Jaipur)(Trib) Ram Kishan Verma v. PCIT (2023)102 ITR 84 /221 TTJ 276(Jaipur)(Trib) Manoj Kumar Sharma v. PCIT (2023)102 ITR 84 /221 TTJ 276 (Jaipur)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Search and seizure-Penalty-Not recording satisfaction-Concealment penalty-Principal Commissioner cannot exercise revisional jurisdiction qua proceedings before an Appellate Authority-Revision is invalid.[S. 132,153A, 271(1)(c)]

Satya Narayan Dhoot v. PCIT (2023)102 ITR 13 (SN) / 221 TTJ 750(Jodhpur) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Industrial undertaking-Losses incurred prior to initial year-Deduction allowed by Assessing Officer in accordance with circular-Without setting off brought forward unabsorbed depreciation-Capital gains-Securities Transaction Tax-Own funds-Revision is quashed. [S.10(38), 80IA]

Reckitt Benchkiser Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2023)102 ITR 35 (SN)(Ahd) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Assessing Officer disallowed the expenses after considering the reply of the assessee –Extent of inquiry Assessing Officer’s prerogative-Commissioner cannot impose his own understanding of extent of inquiry-Revision is not valid. [S.40(a)(i) 40(ia) 143(3)]

Good Earth Fertilizers Co. P. Ltd. v. ITO (2023)102 ITR 68 (SN)(Chennai) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limited scrutiny assessment-Issues raised in revision thoroughly examined in assessment proceedings-Revision is bad in law.[S.14A, 36(1)(iii), R.8D]

G. T. Homes v. PCIT (2023)102 ITR 11 (SN)(Raipur) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Record-Unexplained expenditure-Repayment of unsecured loans-Shell Companies-Revision is not justified-Loans from shell companies-Revision is justified.[S.68, 69C]

Control Print Ltd v. PCIT (2023) 102 ITR 5 (SN)(Mum)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Industrial undertaking-Himachal Pradesh-Audit report filed physically before filing of return-Deposit of cash-Demonetisation period-Detailed filed in the course of assessment proceedings-Revision is held to be not valid.[S.80IA(7), 80IC, 80IE (6), 143(3)]

Kashmiri Lal Gupta v.PCIT (2023)102 ITR 1 / 224 TTJ 370(Chd)(Trib) Gupta Electrico v.PCIT (2023)102 ITR 1/ 224 TTJ 370 (Chd)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Survey-Surrender of income-Commissioner cannot look again at same information-Revision is quashed.[S.133A, 143(3)]