Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Agrani Buildestate v. PCIT [2023] 202 ITD 231 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Rental income-The Assessing officer has taken one plausible view based on exhaustive inquiries and detailed submissions unless the view adopted is not at all sustainable in law-Revision is held to be not valid .[S. 22, 28(i)]

Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. DCIT (E [2023] 201 ITD 274 (Ahd) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
High Court held that the assessee to be a society providing public utility services within the meaning of section 2(15) which was eventually affirmed by the Supreme Court-PCIT was wrong to hold Assessment Order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.-Revision order was quashed.[S. 2(15), 11, 12 13(8), 143(3)]

Reliable Educational Alliance Society v. CIT(E) (2023) 202 ITD 137/ 104 ITR 448 (Trib)(Delhi)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Corpus donation-Assessment completed after due verification / examination by AO of corpus donation including bank statements, balance sheet and confirmation of donation from donor which was also registered u/s. 12AA-Revision order was quashed.[S.12AA]

Impact Foundation (India) v. CIT, (E) (2023) 200 ITD 213 (Mum) (Trib))

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Property held for charitable purposes-Spending from accumulation of income of earlier year-The Assessing Officer had conducted necessary enquiries regarding utilization of income for purpose for which it was accumulated and had accepted same which was a plausible view, impugned revision order was untenable .[S. 11(3), 11 (5)]

Pralay Pradyotkanti Gosh v. Income-tax Officer (IT) [2023] 201 ITD 363 (Ahd) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Salary income-Detailed enquiries into claim of assessee’s income being ‘exempt’ under the Act-Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 5, 192]

Virudhunagar District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v.PCIT (2023) 201 ITD 573 (Chennai Trib)]

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
Provision for doubtful debts-Revision bad in law where the A.O. has taken view possible in respect of standard asset where there was inherent risk of going these debts bad-Revision is upheld in cases where amount was receivable from Government in respect of debts waived off. [S. 36(1)(vii), 36(1)(via)(2)]

Ved Parkash v. PCIT (2023)104 ITR 613/ 225 TTJ 40 (UO) (Chd )( Trib) Durga Dass Surender Kumar v. PCIT (2023)104 ITR 613/ 225 TTJ 40 (UO) (Chd)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Survey-AO completed assessment after considering survey statement, issued specific notice in this regard during assessment-assessee filed explanation-Order of AO could not be held erroneous-Revision order is set aside.[S. 115BBE,133A]

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-AO recorded specific finding that 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-Revision order is set aside.

C & E Ltd. v. PCIT [2023] 201 ITD 816 (Kol)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-CIT set aside assessment order to AO holding it as erroneous on the issue of excess deduction allowed, since issues considered by CIT were purely on facts, CIT himself has to decide-Matter remitted back to him to consider material and draw conclusion. [80IC]

SI Group India P. Ltd. v. ACIT (LTU) (2023)101 ITR 70 (SN)(Mum) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital or Revenue expenditure-Consumables revenue expenditure allowable in the year in which put in line of production-Allowance in previous years not erroneous-Assessing Officer taking sustainable view after enquiry-Revision is not warranted. [S. 32, 37(1)]