Home › Archive for Income-Tax Act › Page 620
Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


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]

Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (KIIT) v. CIT (E) (2022) 217 TTJ 690 / 214 DTR 1 (Cuttack)(Trib)

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Proper enquiry was made in the course of original assessment proceedings-Revision order was quashed.[S.68, 69A, 142(1)]

ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Dy. CIT(2022) 217 TTJ 296 (Mum)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Long term finance-Interest on income tax refund-Re-possessed vehicles treating as bad debt-Non disallowance of unpaid leave encashment-Pendency of appeal before CIT(A)-No merger-Revision is justified-Partly quashed. [S. 36(1)(viia), 36(1)(viii), 250]

Jagati Publications Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 215 TTJ 818 / 210 DTR 137 (Hyd)(Trib) Editorial : Special Bench constituted was quashed Jagati Publications Ltd. v. President ITAT (2015) 377 ITR 31 / 279 CTR 271 / 124 DTR 131 (Bom)(HC). SLP of Revenue is pending and No stay of proceedings. (Diary No. 42483 / 2015 filed on 18th December, 2015. Case No SLP (c) No. 005296 /2016 Registered on 19th Feb, 2016, SLP (C) No. 001974 /2016, Registered on 29th Jan. 2016.

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Share capital-Cash credits-Evidences in the form of confirmation letters were produced in the original assessment proceedings-Additional evidence by Revenue-Charge sheet in criminal proceedings-Not relevant to issue-Additional evidence is not admitted-Revision order was quashed. [S. 2(24), 28(iv), 56(2)(vii)(b), 68, 254(1), ITAT R. 29, CrPC, S. 161, 164]

Sauria Agarwal v. PCIT (2022) 215 TTJ 523 / 211 DTR 63 (Cuttack)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Repayment of loan-Cash deposited in the bank-Examined by the Assessing Officer-Revision order was quashed. [S. 269T]

Dinesh Kumar Singh v. PCIT (2022) 220 TTJ 545/ (2023) 221 DTR 409 (All)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Licence fee-Disallowance on ad-hoc basis-Non application of mind-Revision order was quashed. [S. 37(1)]

Deepak (HUF) v. PCIT (2022) 220 TTJ 447 (Chd)(Trib) Sunita Gupta (Smt) v. PCIT (2022) 220 TTJ 447 (Chd)(Trib) Rajat Gupta v. PCIT (2022) 220 TTJ 447 (Chd)(Trib) Vishal Gupta (HUF) v. PCIT (2022) 220 TTJ 447 (Chd)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Derivative transactions-Fresh material/data received from NSEL-No specific finding recorded by the PCIT-Revision order was quashed. [S. 133(6) 143(2)]

Daljit Singh Bassi v. PCIT (2022) 220 TTJ 5 (UO)(Chd)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-Investment in a residential house-Proper enquire was made by the Assessing Officer, purchase deed and other documents were filed-Revision is not valid [S. 54F, 143(3)]

Bharat Tirtha Rice Mill v. PCIT (2022) 220 TTJ 1057 (Kol)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Cash deposit-Demonetisation-Specific query was raised in the original assessment proceedings-CIT failed to give any plausible reason as to why he does not agree with the opinion of the AO-Revision order was quashed. [S. 143(3)]

Gajraj Mining (P) Ltd v.PCIT (2022) 220 TTJ 1 (UO)(Jabalpur)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Heavy cash deposited in the bank-Revision order was affirmed-Direction was modified to consider only cash deposited in the bank [S. 143(3)]