Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Sun Developers and Builders P. Ltd. v. PCIT (2023)101 ITR 688 (Raipur) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limited scrutiny assessment-Large share application money received against unallotted shares-AO examining and making necessary verifications-Arrived at plausible view-Revision not warranted.[S. 143(3)]

Subhadip Gandhi v. ITO (2023) 101 ITR 133 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Deposit of cash during demonetisation-Non-co-operation and noncompliance of assessee to furnish details to A.O.-Estimation of net profit at 5% by AO without any basis and without consulting any records-Revision is valid. [S. 44AD, 144]

A.K. Santhosh v. Dy. CIT (2023)101 ITR 581 (Cochin) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Best judgement assessment-Failure to serve notice under 143(2)-Invalid assessment cannot be subject matter of revision.[S. 143(2), 144].

Raghuveer Singh v. PCIT (2023)101 ITR 306 (Jaipur) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Business expenditure-Payment in cash in excess of prescribed limit-No dispute as to genuineness of transaction-Assessee taking loan from family members and making payment to sellers of land in cash-Disallowance not attracted to cash transaction for support to family members in immediate business needs-AO did not initiate penalty proceedings after due consideration-Order not prejudicial to revenue-Revision not justified. [S. 40A(3), 44AD, 269SS, 271D]

Gurcharan Singh v. PCIT (2023)101 ITR 539 (Chd) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Cash deposits during demonetisation-AO raised detailed questions and assessee filed responses-AO applied mind to facts-Order of revision quashed.

Kanta Chandak (Smt.) v. ITO (2023)101 ITR 6 (Jodhpur) (Trib) Mohan Lal Chandak v. ITO (2023)101 ITR 6 (Jodhpur) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital Gains-Exemption-Assessee given one more opportunity-Order of PCIT set aside-Matter remanded-Assessee to furnish all information. [S. 54]

SI Group India P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (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-AO taking sustainable view after enquiry-Revision not warranted. [S. 37(1)]

Prerak Goel v. PCIT (2023)101 ITR 30 (SN)(Mum) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Possible view taken by A.O. after pursuing all the evidences-In line with view taken by Tribunal-Revision not warranted. [S.2(47)(v), 54F, 143(3), Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S. 53A]

Parag Prakash Doshi v. PCIT (2023) 101 ITR 42 (SN) (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Not following the order of Tribunal-Revision proposed by PCIT held in favour of assessee in earlier years-Weightage to tribunal order not given-Against fundamental Principles of judicial discipline-Revision not sustainable.[S. 143(3)]

Mylan Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2023) 101 ITR 26 (SN) (Hyd.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-AO calling for details of advertisement and sales promotion during assessment-Possible view taken after going through evidences-A.O. order not erroneous-PCIT not justified-Revision not warranted.[S. 143(3)]