Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Sanjeev Kumar Manchand Rajput v. ITO (2023) 224 TTJ 899 (Pune)(Trib)

S. 270A : Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income-Excess claim of deduction-Penalty is confirmed at 200 per cent. [S. 270A(9)]

Avtar Singh Kalsi through L/H Smt. Kuldeep Kaur v. PCIT(2023) 224 TTJ 47 (UO) (Amritsar)(Trib) Jagtar Singh Kalsi v. PCIT(2023) 224 TTJ 47 (UO) (Amritsar)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-No lack of enquiry-Survey-Income surrendered-Business income-Assessment was finalised after considering the reply of the assessee-Revision order on the basis of surrendered income to be assessed under section 68 @ 60 per.cent as per section. 115BBE is quashed and set aside. [S. 68, 115BBE, 133A, 142(1), 143(2), 143(3)]

Rajinder Singh v. PCIT(2023) 224 TTJ 854(Chd)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Gift from son-Failure of the Assessing Officer to examine the creditworthiness of the donor-Revision order is affirmed. [ S. 143(3)]

M.P. Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. v. ACIT (2023) 225 TTJ 57(UO) (Indore)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Depreciation-Capitalised and treated as revenue receipts-Explained the difference of depreciation-Revision order is set aside.[ S. 32]

Sahebganj No 1 Anchalik Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd v. ITO (2023) 225 TTJ 19 (UO) (Kol)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Source of cash-Neither the Assessing Officer not PCIT examined the source of cash-The matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer to the limited extent to verify the cash available for making deposits in the bank. [ S.68, 143(3)]

Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra)Ltd v. PCIT(2023) 225 TTJ 137 (Mum)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Mark to Market (MTM)-Specific query in the course of assessment proceedings-Loss was reversed in subsequent year-Revision order is quashed. [ S. 43(5)(d), 143(3)]

Garud Credit & Holding (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2023) 226 TTJ 989 (Kol)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue–Invalid assessment-Notice under section 143(2) is not served-Reassessment is bad in law-Issue of shares-Share capital-Order was passed after detailed investigation-Revision is bad in law.[ S. 56, 68, 143(2), 147, 148]

IMC Ltd v. PCIT (2023) 226 TTJ 180 (Kol)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Merger-Interest free funds-Issue is subject matter of appeal before CIT(A)-Revision is bad in law-Transfer pricing-Section 92BA(i) is omitted.w.e.f. I st April, 2017 No ALP is required to be determined in respect of a domestic transaction-No reference was required to the TPO-Revision is bad in law. [ S.14A, 40A(2), 92BA, 92C, R.8D]

Kalinga Institute of Social Sciences (KISS) v. CIT (2023) 226 TTJ 957 (Cuttack)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Show cause notice-Advertisement expenses-Without issuing show cause notice cannot direct the Assessing Officer to verify the bills and vouchers. [ S.40(a)(ia), 40A(3), 143(3)]

Dy.CIT v. N.R.Wires (P) Ltd (2023) 224 TTJ 450 (Raipur)(Trib)

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Subsequent decision of Supreme Court-Delayed payment of employees contribution towards ESI and EPF-Orders allowing the appeals are recalled. [ S. 2(24)(x), 36(1)(va), 43B]