Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Avinash Dattatray Muley. v. PCIT (2025) 214 ITD 151 (Pune) (Trib.)

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
Cost of improvement-Limited scrutiny-Allowed claim towards cost of improvement under section 48 without conducting an inquiry or verification-Revision order affirmed. [S. 48, 54B]

Rishabh Dev. v. ITO (2025) 214 ITD 766 (Dehradun) (Trib.)

S. 249: Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Form of appeal and limitation-Delay of 1386 days-Ex parte assessment-Non-receipt of notices as they were issued to the jail Superintendent while assessee’s father was in jail-Delay was condoned, and the matter was restored to the file of CIT(A) for decision on merits.[S. 144]

Bengal GHG Developers (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2025) 214 ITD 47 (Kol) (Trib.)

S. 199 : Deduction at source-Credit for tax deducted-TDS was not allowed by the Assessing Officer/CPC due to an error in writing the wrong alphabet in PAN-The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.[S. 154]

DCIT (TDS) v. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. (2025) 214 ITD 406 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 194A: Deduction at source-Interest other than interest on securities-Acquisition of loan-Purchased loans (including NCDs, ICDs and term loans)-No part of consideration paid by assessee could be termed as ‘interest’ paid by assessee to transferors-No obligation to deduct tax at source under section 194A. [S. 2(28, 133B(2), 201(1), 201(IA)]

Nandigam Veerabrahmam. v. ITO (2025) 214 ITD 553 (Visakha) (Trib.)

S. 151: Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice –Notice beyond a period of three years-Assessing Officer was statutorily obligated to have obtained approval from either of the authorities specified under section 151(ii) as per section 151 as amended by Finance Act, 2021, effective from 1-4-2021-Reassessment notice and consequential orders were quashed.[S.68, 148, 147,151 (ii)]

Karia Builders. v. ITO (2025) 214 ITD 161 (Pune) (Trib.)

S. 151: Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice –Notice under section 148 was issued after expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year without approval from the authority prescribed under section 151(ii)-Reassessment proceedings were invalid. [S. 148, 151(ii)]

Sainik Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. v. ITO (2025) 214 ITD 595 (Amritsar) (Trib.)

S. 149: Reassessment-Time limit for notice-Cash deposits-Notice under section 148A in July 2022-Revised notice period for assessment year 2013-14 expired on 26 June 2022-Notice issued on 25 th July 2022 was barred by limitation.[S. 69A, 147, 148, 148A(b), 148A(d)]

ITO v. Ratan Kumar Ingu. (2025) 214 ITD 651 (Hyd) (Trib.)

S. 147: Reassessment-Purchase of agricultural land-MOU on 21-3-2016-Presented before Joint Sub-Registrar on 24-3-2016, falling in financial year 2015-16 relevant to assessment year 2016-17-Reassessment for the assessment year 2017-18 was not valid. [S. 148 ITATR.27, Registration Act, 1908, S. 47]

Sonea Dhir (Mrs.) v. CIT (A) (2025) 214 ITD 128 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 147: Reassessment-Unexplained investments-No addition was made on the reasons recorded-Reassessment order was quashed and set aside.[S.50C, 69, 148]

ACIT v. Anant Commodities (P.) Ltd. (2025) 214 ITD 68 (Indore) (Trib.)

S. 145: Method of accounting-Estimation of profit-Decline in gross profit margin-No specific defects or discrepancies in books of account-Appeal of revenue dismissed.