Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Ri Kynjai Serenity By The Lake. v. PCIT (2023) 334 CTR 890 (Meghalaya) ( HC) Hotel Centre Point. v. PCIT (2023) 334 CTR 890 (Meghalaya) ( HC)

S. 10(26) : Schedule Tribes-Income of member of Scheduled Tribe-Individual-Special Bench-Family-Matter remanded to the Tribunal with a request to the President of the Tribunal to constitute a Larger Bench without including either member who was a party to the order for the consideration of the entire gamut of the matter. [S. 2(31), 184, 254(1), 255, 260A]

CIT (E) v. Institute of Liver & Biliary Sciences (2023) 335 CTR 922 / 154 taxmann.com 401 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 10 (23C): Educational institution-Interest earned on grants-Quantifying amount of grant-in-aid-Eligible to claim exemption. [10(23C) (iiiac), 11, 13, R. 2BBB]

PCIT v. Prabhat Agri Biotech Ltd (2023) 333 CTR 439 (Telangana)( HC)

S. 10(1) : Agricultural income-Apportionment of expenses-Agricultural and trading-Order of Tribunal is affirmed. [S. 260A]

Regards Developers (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2023) 199 ITD 1 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 271C : Penalty-Failure to deduct at source-External development charges to Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA)-Not liable to deduct tax at source-Levy of penalty is not justified.

Benchmarrk Realty LLP. v. DCIT (2023)199 ITD 511 (Pune) (Trib.)

S. 271B :Penalty-Failure to get accounts audited-Builder and developer-Percentage completion of accounts-Gross receipts of were more than Rs. one crore-Levy of penalty is justified.[S.44AB]

Tata AIA Life Insurance Company Ltd. v. PCIT (2023) 199 ITD 247 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Insurance business-Income/funds in shareholders account was taxable separately at rate of 30 per cent instead of 12 per cent-Revision order is quashed. [S.44, 115B]

V.M. & Co. v. DCIT (2023) 199 ITD 142 (Chennai) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limited scrutiny-Civil contractor-Revision order is quashed. [S. 37(1)]

Dhirajlal Amichand Shah. v. PCIT (2023] 199 ITD 686 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Real estate developer-Annual value-Deemed rent-Unsold flats as stock-in-trade for more than one year-Revision is not justified-Amendment to section 23 vide introduction of sub-section (5) by Finance Act, 2017 with effect from 1-4-2018 whereby property held as stock-in-trade was brought to tax, would be effective prospectively.[S. 22, 23]

Hemant Kumar Mulchandani. v. PCIT (2023) 199 ITD 448 / 224 TTJ 239 (Jabalpur) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Cash deposited-Demonetization-No enquiry was made in the assessment proceedings-Commissioner remanding the matter to Assessing Officer for de novo consideration is justified. [S.69A]

Dineshbhai Jivanbhai Sanspara. v. PCIT (2023) 199 ITD 698 (Surat) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-Profit on sale of property used for residence-Constructed house before one year from sale of flats-Revision order is not valid.[S. 54]