Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Cavincare Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2023) 102 ITR 436 / 221 TTJ 549 (Chennai) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-AO allowed deduction u/s 35(2AB) after verifying all the necessary documents and certificates-Neither the AO nor the PCIT has power to question the approval granted by the DSIR. [S. 35(2AB), 143(3)]

Britannia Industries Ltd. v. PCIT (2023) 102 ITR 513 (Kol)(Trib)

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-No detailed inquiry or verification by PCIT-Failure to point out error in assessment order-Order is quashed. [S.35(2AB), 143(3)]

Anil Kumar Singh v. PCIT (2023) 221 TTJ 97 (All) (Trib)

S.263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Since the revisionary order was passed within five days from the date of issuance of show cause notice, proper and effective opportunity of being heard was not provided to the assessee matter restored back to PCIT to pass fresh revisionary order after giving proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.[S.143(3)]

Duckwoo Autoind Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2023) 221 TTJ 235 (Chennai)(Trib)

S.263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limited scrutiny assessment the PCIT can examine the only issue which was before the Assessing Officer during the course of scrutiny assessment and not any other issue which has not been subject matter of the Assessing Officer for the assessment in a limited scrutiny assessment. [S.143(3)]

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 (Jaipur)(Trib) Ram Kishan Verma v. PCIT (2023)102 ITR 84 (Jaipur)(Trib) Manoj Kumar Sharma v. PCIT (2023)102 ITR 84 (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) (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)]