Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Balaji Farms and Reality v. Asst. CIT (2024) 111 ITR 30 (SN) (Indore)(Trib.)

S.271 (1) (c): Penalty-Concealment-Even if the reassessment order was quashed for any reason, the original assessment order would continue to exist-Additional income assessed in reassessment would warrant separate penalty proceedings-Independent of penalty qua income assessed in the original assessment-Matter remanded to CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. [S. 143(3), 147, 148, 250]

Anjali Neeraj Hardikar v. NFAC(2024) 111 ITR 15 (SN) (Mum)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-Quantum against-Quantum decided against alone was not sufficient for initiation of penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. [S.80GGC]

Anandkumar Salooja v. Dy. CIT (2024) 111 ITR 95 (SN)(Chennai)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(C) : Penalty-Concealment-Remuneration and interest on capital received from the firm as a partner-Assessing officer processed original return though the claim may be wrong-No issue as regards concealment of particulars of income, not a fit case for levy of penalty. [S.44AD]

Adinath Vasantrao Wandhekar v. ITO (2024) 111 ITR 28 (SN)/ 165 taxmann.com 288/229 TTJ 525/237 DTR 265 (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 270A:Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income-Gratuity-Claiming exemption-Public sector undertaking-Not Government-Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd-Levy of penalty is not valid.[S.10(10AA)(ii), 270A(8)]

Shail P. Shah (HUF) v. PCIT (2024)111 ITR 8 (SN)(Ahd) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limited scrutiny-Declared net profit from business more than 8 Per Cent. of total turnover-Furnished all details in the course of assessment proceedings-Revision is not justified.[S.44AD, 143(3)]

Sampark Management Consultancy LLP v. PCIT (2024)111 ITR 18 (SN)/ 230 TTJ 735/ 241 DTR 84 (Delhi) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Dividend-Allocation of expenses-Order of Assessing Officer is not erroneous-Limited scrutiny-Enquiry as to source of investment in mutual fund units neither envisaged nor called for Revision order is quashed.[S. 10(35), 142(1), 143(3)]

Linde India Ltd. v. PCIT (2024)111 ITR 91 (SN)(Kol)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Revision-Possible-Commissioner giving directions to Assessing Officer without pointing out how view taken by Assessing Officer was wrong-Revision is quashed.[S. 142(1), 143(3)]

Jai Parkash v. PCIT (2024)111 ITR 80 (SN)(Delhi)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Income from other sources-Compensation for acquisition of agricultural land-Interest on compensation-Two views possible-Revision order is quashed. [S.4, 56(2)(vii) 143(3), Land Acquisition Act, 1894,S. 28]

Bhavnaben K. Punjani (Smt (v. PCIT (2024) 206 ITD 30 (Rajkot)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Order in the name of deceased-Invalid assessment could not be revised-Revision order is quashed. [S.50C, 143(3)]

V-con Integrated Solutions P. Ltd. v. PCIT (2024) 112 ITR 118 (Chd) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limited Scrutiny-The other issues related to revision were duly scrutinised and accepted by the AO by taking into consideration full details filed by the assessee-Revision order is quashed. [S.14A, 36(1(iii), 80JJAA(b)]