Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Kamal Vyas v. PCIT (2022) 216 TTJ 7 / 211 DTR 25 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Bogus accommodation entries-Revision on the basis of roving enquiries-CBDT circular on no set-off of loss against deemed income u/s 115BBE applicable w.e.f. 1st April 2017-Invocation of section 263 jurisdiction by the Ld. CIT is invalid-Income assessed remains same even pursuant to revision-Revision is not valid. [S. 56, 68, 115BBE, 143(3)]

Ajanta Infrastructure Ltd. v. CIT (2022) 216 TTJ 466/ 211 DTR 201 (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to Revenue-AO failure to verify the genuineness of the lenders-Complete details not submitted by the assessee-Revision justified. [S. 133(6), 143(3), 147, 148]

ACIT v. Northern Motors Pvt. Ltd. (2022) 216 TTJ 43 (UO) (Raipur)(Trib.)

S. 253 : Appellate Tribunal-Monetary limits-Circular specifying monetary limits for the department is retrospective in nature-the circular applies to already pending as well as new appeals. [S. 253(4)]

Frick India Ltd. v. DCIT (2022) 216 TTJ 146 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 251 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Powers-New issue which was not considered by AO during the course of assessment-Enhancement is not valid. [S. 94(7), 251(1)(a)]

Shree Naurang Godavari Entertainment Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 194 ITD 431 / 216 TTJ 853/ 212 DTR 129 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Procedure-Ex parte order-Order id set aside.

ITO v. Thyrocare Technologies Ltd. (2022) 216 TTJ 513/ 213 DTR 233 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 201 : Deduction at source-Failure to deduct or pay-Pathological testing services-Commission or discount to sample collection centres-No obligation to deduct tax at source-Cannot be treated as assessee in default. [S. 194H]

P. S. Jagdish v. Dy. CIT (2022) 216 TTJ 500 / 211 DTR 153 (Chennai)(Trib.)/Shekar P. S. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 216 TTJ 500 / 211 DTR 153 (Chennai)(Trib)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-The date of the original order is the commencing point of limitation, irrelevant to the subsequent rectification or subsequent application. Hence, the order passed beyond 31.03.2015 is barred by limitation. [S. 143(1), 154(7)]

Neelachal Carbo Metalicks (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 216 TTJ 201/ 211 DTR 76 (Cuttack)(Trib.)

S. 153D : Assessment-Search-Approval-Order passed by AO without due approval from supervisory authority-Order was quashed. [S. 142(1), 153A]

ACIT v. Lepro Herbals (P.) Ltd. (2022) 94 ITR 225 / 216 TTJ 782 / 215 DTR 233 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 153A : Assessment-Search or requisition-Hard disc-Undisclosed income-No corroborative evidence such as bogus purchase bills or bogus expenses and unexplained investment found during search-Addition is held to be not valid. [S. 132, 145(2)]

ACIT v. B.G. Channappa (2022) 64 CCH 56 / 216 TTJ 963 / 214 DTR 74 (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 153A : Assessment-Search or requisition-Unexplained expenditure-Purchase of land-Addition was held to be justified. [S. 132]