Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


DCIT (Central ) v. Sunetra Ajit Pawar (Mrs.) (Legal Heir of Late Shri Ajit Anantrao Pawar) (Mum.)(Trib.)www.itatonline.org .

S. 153C: Assessment of income of other person – Addition on basis of loose papers / diaries seized from third party – No reference to assessee by name – Identification only on basis of code “DD”, mobile data, WhatsApp chats and Truecaller – Not permissible – No incriminating material “belonging to” or “relating to” assessee – Jurisdiction u/s 153C not valid – Addition of ₹32.14 crore deleted.[ S. 69, 69A , 69C , 132 , 132(4A), 292C ]

Mahaveer Sukhanraj Kawar v. ITO (Mum)( Trib) www.itatonline.og .

S. 68 : Cash credits – Long-term capital gains – Penny stock – Addition based solely on Investigation Wing report without independent enquiry – Documentary evidences not disproved – Transactions through demat and stock exchange – Addition deleted – Suspicion cannot replace evidence.[ S. 10(38 ), 45 ]

Geeta Pravin Vypari (Mrs ) v. ITO ( Mum)( Trib ) www.itatonline.org

S. 69A: Unexplained money – Cash deposits during demonetisation – Explained source as past withdrawals and share of siblings – Affidavit was filed before the Tribunal reaffirming the submissions made before the Assessing Officer and CIT (A) – Addition deleted as AO failed to rebut evidence and discharge burden- Additional ground admitted . [ S. 115BBE ,254(1) ]

GM Modular Private Limited v. PCIT (Bom)(HC) www.itatonline.org .

S. 270A: Penalty – Under-reporting of income – Disallowance of employees’ contribution to PF/ESI – Addition already made in intimation u/s 143(1) – No “under-reported income” – Claim based on jurisdictional High Court judgment – Issue debatable – No penalty leviable – Revision u/s 264 maintainable – Commissioner cannot reject revision without reasons – Penalty and revision order quashed. [S. 36(1)(va), 143(1), 143(3), 153A, 264, Art .226 ]

Job G. Oommen v. UOI [2024] 169 taxmann.com 407 /(2025) 481 ITR 638 (Ker)(HC)

S. 281 : Certain transfers to be void-Recovery of tax-Notice of demand-Deceased-Transfer of property-First charge of State-Transfer becomes void-Over-riding effect of section 26B of 1963 Act-Creating first charge on State-Properties were subsequently purchased by petitioner from auction, buyer, Income-tax Department could not proceed against said properties lawfully in possession of petitioner for realizing arrears payable by deceased assessee under Income-tax Act. [S. 156,Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, s. 26B, Art.226]

PCIT v. Parivar Television Pvt. Ltd. (2025) 481 ITR 14 /(2026) 308 Taxman 186 (SC) Editorial : PCIT v. Parivar Television Pvt. Ltd (2025) 483 ITR 391/180 taxmann.co 109 (Guj)(HC)

S.271D: Penalty-Takes or accepts any loan or deposit-Assessing Officer not recording satisfaction in assessment order that there had been violation of section 269SS-High Court quashed the penalty order-SLP dismissed.[S. 269SS, Art. 136]

PCIT v. Shyam Sunder Jindal (2025) 481 ITR 568/ 304 Taxman 1 (SC) Editorial : PCIT v. Shyam Sunder Jindal(2023) 296 Taxman 115 / (2024) 462 ITR 501 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Not specifying the charge in the notice-None of relevant columns had been indicated nor had irrelevant columns been struck off-Penalty notice was invalid in law-SLP dismissed. [S. 274, Art. 136]

PCIT v. Prabhu Poly Pipes Ltd. (2025) (2025) 481 ITR 503 / 176 taxmann.com 693 (Cal.) (HC) Editorial : PCIT v. Prabhu Poly Pipes Ltd. (2025) 481 ITR 506/306 Taxman 161 ((SC), SLP dismissed.

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Unsecured loans-AO raised queries, examined identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of creditors, and took a plausible view-General observation by PCIT without specific finding as to what inquiry was lacking-Revision order not sustainable. [S. 143(3), 153A]

PCIT v. Kanubhai Vanmalibhai Patel (2025)481 ITR 246 / [2025] 178 taxmann.com 133 (Guj.) (HC). Editorial : SLP of revenue dismissed, delay of 365 days, PCIT v. Kanubhai Vanmalibhai Patel (2025) 307 Taxman 6 (SC)

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-AO allowed deduction under section 54B after detailed inquiry-View taken by AO reasonable and plausible-Twin conditions for section 263 not fulfilled-Revision order not sustainable. [S. 54B, 260A]

CIT v. Ramco Cements Ltd. [2025] 481 ITR 705 / 173 taxmann.com 226 (Mad)(HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Expert opinion of technical matters-Inspection of factory to decide the matter-Not perverse or any excess of jurisdiction. [S. 260A]