Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Leeford Health Care Ltd v. PCIT (2022) 99 ITR 19 (Chd)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Freebies or gifts-stockists and distributors-Enquirers were made in the assessment proceedings-Revision is not valid. [S. 37(1), 153A]

Siemens Ltd. v. CIT (2022)99 ITR 50 (SN)(Mum) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Assessment order passed giving effect to order of Settlement Commission-Revision is not valid [S. 143(3), 245D(3), 245D(4)]

Sethi Finmart (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2022)99 ITR 59 (SN)(Kol) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Business expenditure-Revision is held to be not valid [S. 68, 69C]

Sangeeta Ganpati Jadhav (Smt.) v. CCIT (2022)99 ITR 62 (SN)(Pune)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Exemption allowed after considering written submissions and supported documents-Revision is held to be not valid [S. 54F]

Reinforce Recruiter Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2022)99 ITR 13 (SN)(Delhi) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limited Scrutiny-Assessing Officer examined all facts relating to issues selected for limited scrutiny-Failure to make enquiry into issue relating to invested in unlisted equities-Revision is not valid.[S. 56(2(viia), 143(3)]

Aryadeep Complex (P)Ltd. v. PCIT (2022) 219 TTJ 735 /218 DTR 25 (Raipur)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limited scrutiny-PCIT cannot travel beyond the Limited scrutiny Investment-Investment reflected in balance sheet-Furnished basic details-Direction was modified to consider the investment made in the course of the set aside proceedings. [S. 143(3)]

Fortune Metaliks Ltd. v. PCIT (2022) 217 TTJ 662 / 215 DTR 37 / 95 ITR 477 (Chd)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Lack of adequate opportunity-Basic enquiries are not conducted by the PCIT-Revision order was quashed.[S. 143(3)]

Binal Parixit Patel (Mrs) v. PCIT (2022) 217 TTJ 10 (UO) (Ahd)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Reassessment was done on account of capital gains-Assessing Officer is not making any addition on capital gain-Addition was made on account of sale of shares-Revision order on other issues is not valid in law. [S. 45, 54, 143(3), 147, 148]

Bhagashri Nagri Sahakart PT. Sanstha Maryadit v. PCIT (2022) 217 TTJ 40 (UO) (Nag.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Lack of proper enquiry-Delayed deposit of the employees’ contribution towards Provident fund-Revision is not valid [S. 36(1)(va),43B, 80P(2)(a)(i)]

Alfa Lavel Lund AB v. CIT (IT)(2022) 215 TTJ 814 (Pune)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Proposal sent by the Assessing Officer-AO cannot use the power of the CTT and recommend a revision-CIT having passed the order on the basis of the proposal sent by the AO, it is a case of jurisdiction deficit-Order was quashed on legal issue. [S. 143(3), 147, 154]