Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


DCIT v. Convergys Customer Management Group Inc. (2023) 198 ITD 100 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 271AA : Penalty-Failure to keep and maintain books of accounts-Documents-International transaction-Transfer pricing-Not specified the documents / information which are required to be kept or maintained-Order of CIT(A) deleting the penalty is affirmed.[S.92D(1), 92D(2)]

Trivikram Singh Toor. v. PCIT (2023) 198 ITD 533/222 TTJ 798 (Chd) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue Capital gains-Penny stocks-Exemption cannot be denied merely based on surrenders made by bogus entry providers claiming that it provided bogus LTCG through shares of such company-Revision order is quashed.[S. 10(38),45 148]

Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT (2023) 198 ITD 363 /221 TTJ 65(Chennai ) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Amounts not deductible-Value added tax remittances-Collected VAT along with sale price of liquor bottle-VAT payable by assessee would not attract provisions of section 40(a)(iib) of the Act-Revision order is quashed.[S. 37(1), 40(a)(iib)]

Karabi Dealers (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2023) 198 ITD 221 (Kol) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limited scrutiny-No entry in order sheet in assessment proceedings-Non application of mind-Revision is held to be valid.[S.37(1), 143(3)]

Rangnathappa Govindappa Zharkhande v. ITO (2023) 198 ITD 290 /225 TTJ 621 (Pune) (Trib.)

S. 251 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Powers-Capital gains-Business income-Jurisdiction of Commissioner (Appeals) does not extend to introducing an altogether new source of income.[S. 28(i), 45]

Rakesh Metal & Tubes. v. ITO (2023) 198 ITD 1 (SMC ) (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 251 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Powers-Delay of 54 months-Father hospitalised-Delay is condoned-Directed the CIT(A) to decide on merits. [S. 250]

Mukesh Kumar Agarwal. v. ITO (2023) 198 ITD 32 (Jaipur) (Trib.)

S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Notice issued by non-Jurisdictional Assessing Officer-Order is void-ab initio. [S. 147]

G.M. Fabrics (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2023) 198 ITD 67 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 221 : Collection and recovery-Penalty-Tax in default-Original return invalid-Revised return-Failure to pay tax as per original which was held to be invalid-Levy of penalty is not valid. [S. 139(4) 140A]

G.K. Traders v. ITO (2023) 198 ITD 72 (Rajkot) (Trib.)

S. 206C : Collection at source-Trading-Alcoholic liquor-Forest produce-Scrap-Buyers declaration in Form No 27C-No time limit is prescribed-Delay in filing the Form-Cannot be treated as asseessee in default-Benefit cannot be denied-Matter is remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide issue de novo after giving assessee due opportunity of hearing. [S. 206C(IA), (206C(6), 206C(7), Form No 27C]

Sanjay Mahadev Khopkar. v. ACIT (2023) 198 ITD 512 (Surat) (Trib.)

S. 205 : Deduction at source-Bar against direct demand-Deduction of tax at source while making payment of wages-Failure to deposit to Government account-Matter restored back to Assessing Officer to verify fact and grant set off of tax deducted. [S. 199]