Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Sanguine Media Ltd. v. Pr. CIT (2025) 122 ITR 601 (Chd.)(Trib.)

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Reassessment initiated to verify alleged accommodation loans-No evidence of receipt of loans found in books or bank accounts-Revision based on suspicion-Order quashed. [S. 68, 147, 148]

Renu Singla (Smt.) v. Pr. CIT (2025) 122 ITR 631 / 175 taxmann.com 304 (Chd.)(Trib.)

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Survey-Surrender of excess cash and unaccounted advances as professional income-Assessing Officer after due enquiry accepting claim-Revision held invalid. [S.69A 115BBE, 133A]

J M G Green Promoters and Developers v. Pr. CIT [2024] 164 taxmann.com 1018 / (2025) 122 ITR 426 (Chd.)(Trib.)

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital introduced by partners-Burden to explain source lies on partners-Assessment of firm not erroneous-Cash deposits in bank-Cash sales recorded in books and accepted-Revision invalid-Audit objection-Internal audit information can form basis-Independent application of mind by Principal Commissioner sufficient-Unsecured loan-Issue not challenged by assessee-Matter restored to Assessing Officer.[S.68, 143(3)]

Vijay Kumar Patel v. Pr. CIT (2025) 122 ITR 436 (Raipur)(Trib.)

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Appeal pending before Commissioner (Appeals)-Revision on issues not forming subject matter of appeal-Revision valid-Penalty initiated under wrong provision-Correction through revision permissible where assessment otherwise erroneous-Addition under section 68 taxed at normal rate instead of mandatory rate under section 115BBE-Revision valid. [S.68,115BBE, 250, 271AAC]

Prampreet Kaur v. ITO (2025) 122 ITR 14 (Armritsar)(Trib)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Delay of 449 days-Delay was condoned and matter remanded to the file of CIT A) to decide on merits. [S. 250]

Indian Railway Finance Corporation Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2025) 122 ITR 161 / 175 taxmann.com 747 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 251 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Powers-Enhancement by Commissioner (Appeals)-Mandatory notice under section 251(2) not issued-Enhancement invalid-Company-Book profit-Recast financial statements-Adjustment not adjudicated-Matter remanded. [S. 115JB, 251 (2)]

Bose Corporation India (P.) Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2025) 122 ITR 412 / 175 taxmann.com 586 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 194C: Deduction at source-Contractors-Rent-Common Area Maintenance (CAM) charges-Separate agreements-CAM charges not part of rent-Tax deductible under section 194C at 1% and not at 10% u/s 194I. [S. 194I, 201(1), 201(1A)]

Dy. CIT v. Karuppagounder Palaniswami (2025) 122 ITR 380 (Chennai)(Trib.)

S. 153C: Assessment-Income of any other person-Search–Third-party search-Dumb document-Abbreviated entries without corroborative evidence-Addition deleted-Limitation-Satisfaction note received beyond permissible period-Assessment for assessment year 2015-16 without jurisdiction-Satisfaction note-Prima facie satisfaction sufficient for assumption of jurisdiction-Delay of 16 days-Sufficient cause-Delay condoned.[S. 132(4), 153A, 292C]

Naval Kishore v. Dy. CIT (2025) 122 ITR 23 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 153A: Assessment-Search-No incriminating material found during search of assessee-Material seized from third party cannot form basis of assessment under section 153A-Assessment invalid-Return filed in response to notice-Revised computation during assessment-Addition based on difference from original return-Not justified-Undisclosed income-Sale of plots-Transactions duly recorded in books-No evidence of suppression-Addition deleted-Unexplained expenditure-Development expenses-Assessee only landowner-Expenditure incurred by associates-Addition deleted-Cash credits-Sale proceeds of plots deposited in bank-Source explained-Enhancement of profit by Commissioner (Appeals) deleted-Inter-bank transfer-Amount taxed twice as unexplained credit-Addition deleted-Cash credits-Documentary evidence explaining source-Addition restricted to profit element upheld. [S. 68, 69, 69C, 132, 139 153C]

Harish Jain v. Asst. CIT (2025) 122 ITR 640 / 174 taxmann.com 348 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 153A: Assessment-Search-Unexplained investment-Addition based solely on retracted statement-No corroborative evidence-Addition deleted-Rental income-Seized rental agreement-Income already offered to tax-Addition deleted-Unexplained investment-Cost of construction-Addition based only on retracted confession-No supporting evidence-Addition deleted.[S. 69, 132(4), 153D]