Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Keb Hana Bank v. JDIT (2023) 226 TTJ 1 (UO) (Chennai)(Trib)

S. 271FAA : Penalty-Furnishing inaccurate statement of financial transaction or reportable account-Rectified the defects-Revised Form No 61B within the time allowed under section 285BA(4)-Penalty is deleted. [ S. 285BA(4), Form No 61B]

Thamira Green Farm (P.) Ltd. v Add. CIT (2023) 155 taxmann.com 320/ 226 TTJ 1052 (Chennai)(Trib.)

S.271D: Penalty-Takes or accepts any loan or deposit-Loan from its director-Purchase of lands in name of company-Current account transaction-Neither loan or deposit-Penalty is deleted. [S. 269SS]

Association of Oral Maxillofacial Surgeons of India v. ITO (2023) 225 TTJ 740 / 156 taxmann.com 332 (Pune)(Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-No addition to the returned income-Making a wholistic view of factual panorama of case and circumstances, in which return for year could not be filed within stipulated time, it could be said that there was a reasonable cause, bringing case out of purview of Explanation 3 to 271(1)(c).[ S. 11, 12A, 12AA, 153]

Penta Media Graphics Ltd v.Dy.CIT(2023) 226 TTJ 899 (Chennai)(Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Failure to declare capital gains-Quantum addition is confirmed by the Tribunal-Penalty is affirmed.[ S. 45]

Sanjeev Kumar Manchand Rajput v. ITO (2023) 224 TTJ 899 (Pune)(Trib)

S. 270A : Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income-Excess claim of deduction-Penalty is confirmed at 200 per cent. [S. 270A(9)]

Avtar Singh Kalsi through L/H Smt. Kuldeep Kaur v. PCIT(2023) 224 TTJ 47 (UO) (Amritsar)(Trib) Jagtar Singh Kalsi v. PCIT(2023) 224 TTJ 47 (UO) (Amritsar)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-No lack of enquiry-Survey-Income surrendered-Business income-Assessment was finalised after considering the reply of the assessee-Revision order on the basis of surrendered income to be assessed under section 68 @ 60 per.cent as per section. 115BBE is quashed and set aside. [S. 68, 115BBE, 133A, 142(1), 143(2), 143(3)]

Rajinder Singh v. PCIT(2023) 224 TTJ 854(Chd)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Gift from son-Failure of the Assessing Officer to examine the creditworthiness of the donor-Revision order is affirmed. [ S. 143(3)]

M.P. Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. v. ACIT (2023) 225 TTJ 57(UO) (Indore)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Depreciation-Capitalised and treated as revenue receipts-Explained the difference of depreciation-Revision order is set aside.[ S. 32]

Sahebganj No 1 Anchalik Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd v. ITO (2023) 225 TTJ 19 (UO) (Kol)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Source of cash-Neither the Assessing Officer not PCIT examined the source of cash-The matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer to the limited extent to verify the cash available for making deposits in the bank. [ S.68, 143(3)]

Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra)Ltd v. PCIT(2023) 225 TTJ 137 (Mum)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Mark to Market (MTM)-Specific query in the course of assessment proceedings-Loss was reversed in subsequent year-Revision order is quashed. [ S. 43(5)(d), 143(3)]