Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Vishal Ashwin Patel v. ACIT [2022] 136 taxmann.com 372 / www.itatonline.org (SC) Editorial: Reversed Vishal Ashwin Patel v. ACIT (WP Nos. 3209/2019, 3150/2019, 3208/2019 and 3137/2019 (Bom)(HC) dated January 11, 2022.

S. 147 Reassessment – Notice – Writ Petition – High Court dismisses the Petition – Not a reasoned order – Order set aside to High Court and decide a fresh on their merits . [S. 148 ,Art , 226 ]

Tata Power Co. Ltd. v. PCIT (2021) 90 ITR 554 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Original assessment allowing the claim u/s. 80IA of the Act-Reassessment to disallow excess claim of deduction-Deduction was not subject matter in reassessment-Limitation to be counted from original assessment-Matter dealt with original assessment-Revision was quashed. [S. 8OIA, 143(3), 147]

V. B. Builders v. Dy. CIT (2021) 90 ITR 4 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Builder-Estimation of profit-Levy of penalty was held to be not justified.

Jamnalal Bajaj Foundation v. Dy. CIT(E) (2021) 90 ITR 87 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Neither assessment order nor penalty notice specifying the charge-Revised return was filed before issue of notice u/s. 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act-Claiming only statutory deduction-Levy of penalty was held to be not valid. [S. 11(2), 12A, 142(1), 143(2), 274]

Jamnalal Bajaj Foundation v. Dy. CIT(E) (2021) 90 ITR 87 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Neither assessment order nor penalty notice specifying the charge-Revised return was filed before issue of notice u/s. 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act-Claiming only statutory deduction-Levy of penalty was held to be not valid. [S. 11(2), 12A, 142(1), 143(2), 274]

ASIT C. Mehta Investment Intermediates P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2021) 90 ITR 7 (SN) (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Set off of unabsorbed depreciation and business losses-Making full disclosure-Penalty not sustainable. [S. 115JB]

Aanya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2021) 90 ITR 5 (SN) (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Disallowance of expenditure of annual exchange service charges-Levy of penalty is held to be not warranted. [S. 37(1)]

Lovely International Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2021)90 ITR 52 (SN) (Kol.) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Share capital and share premium-Identity and creditworthiness established-Revision order is held to be not sustainable. [S. 68]

Ashokkumar Govindbhai v. ITO (2021) 90 ITR 262 (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Interest on borrowed capital-Order was passed after due verification-Sale of land-Variation with in tolerance limit of 15 per Cent-Revision order was quashed. [S. 36(1(iii), 50(C), 143(3)]

Shiv Edibles Ltd. v. ACIT (2021) 90 ITR 669 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Order of Supreme Court extending limitation for purposes of all laws-Miscellaneous application filed on 28-9-2020 was admitted as filed within extended due date-Glaring and patent mistakes-Tribunal order was recalled and matter was directed to be heard afresh.