Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Kirti Diam v. PCIT (2023) 103 ITR 602 (Mum.) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
Assessment filed by the retailer approved by the AO-Purchase of lose diamonds not practical according to AO-Finding of Principal Commissioner that enquiry or verification not done not justified. [S. 143(3)]

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 on Issue of high ratio of refund to credit of tax deducted at source-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. [S. 143(3)]

Satvir Kaur (Smt.) v. PCIT (2023)105 ITR 387 (Amritsar) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Difference of opinion-Sale-Cash deposited into bank-Not sustainable. [S. 143(3)]

Meet Pal Singh v. PCIT (2023) 105 ITR 584 (Chd)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Cash credits-Revision is quashed.[S. 143(3),153A]

Kays Jewels P. Ltd. v. PCIT (2023)105 ITR 324 (Lucknow)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Cash deposits during demonetisation period-Revision order is quashed.[S.68]

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)0(Chd)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Surrendered income-No inquiry by Principal CIT to arrive at a contrary finding-Revision order is quashed.

Shree Ganesh Intermediary P. Ltd. v. PCIT (2023) 103 ITR 86 (SN) (Ahd)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
The AO failed to make reference to transfer pricing officer for examining issue of specified domestic transactions-Also, allowed huge loss on commodity transactions without proper inquiries.[S. 43(5)]

Schaeffler India Ltd. v .PCIT (2023)200 ITD 747 / 103 ITR 19 (SN)(Ahd) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Assessee submitted Form 3CM and Form 3CLA-Claim cannot be rejected in absence of intimation to Department in Form 3CL-No lack of inquiry by the AO-Dismissed the order passed by the PCIT.[S. 35(2AB]

Sai Organic Farms v. PCIT (2023) 103 ITR 41 (SN) (Chennai) Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Difference in estimation yield in respect of Tomatoes-Set aside the assessment order-Reason to set-aside is erroneous-No prejudice caused to the interest of the revenue merely on difference in estimation.[S. 144]

Shanti Multilink P. Ltd. v Pr. CIT (2023)105 ITR 49 (SN) (Ahd) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Payment to director-AO enquired remuneration paid to directors and taking well-informed decision after considering submissions made by the Assessee and restrict payment to one director. Revision by Pr. CIT on ground payment to another director should also have been restricted, not justified.[S. 40(2)(b)]