Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Karnataka Forest Development Corporation Ltd. v. PCIT (2022) 94 ITR 31 (SN) (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Lack of enquiry-Revision is valid-Deduction cannot exceed sum allowed in original assessment. [S. 143(3)]

Surinder Pal Singh v. PCIT (2022) 94 ITR 458 (Chd.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Agricultural income-Mere audit objection or merely because another view is possible does not allow jurisdiction under the section, to claim the order of the AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.

Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. PCIT (2022) 94 ITR 562 / 217 TTJ 323 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Expenditure incurred towards spectrum is not an expenditure for acquiring right to operate telecommunication services but is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation u/s. 32 of the Act-Revision is bad in law. [S. 32, 35ABB]

Starpoint Construction (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2022) 94 ITR 299 (Kol.) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Cash credits-Share capital premium-Discharged the burden in original assessment proceedings-Revision is bad in law. [S. 68]

Ambuja Cements Ltd. v. CIT (LTU) (2022) 94 ITR 13 (SN) / 217 TTJ 498 / 215 DTR 215 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Employees’ Stock option scheme expenses-Additional compensation-Revision is not valid-Book profit-Interest-Revision is valid. [S. 37 (1), 115JB(2)]

Aishwarya Rai Bachchan v. PCIT (2022) 194 ITD 272 / 94 ITR 49 (SN) (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Transaction fee-Subject matter of appeal before CIT(A)-Original assessment reopened to tax profits earned on surrender of purchase pension policy-Return filed was accepted in reassessment proceedings-Reassessment becomes invalid-Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 14A, 56, 143(3), 147, 148]

Add. CIT v. Interglobe Aviation Ltd. (2022) 94 ITR 28 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Deduction of tax at source-Aircraft lease-Order of High Courts-Tribunal for earlier year holding payment exempt and High Court dismissing Department’s appeal-Order of CIT(A) allowing the rectification order is held to be justified. [S. 10(15A), 40(a)(i), 250]

MGV Jain Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2022) 94 ITR 191 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 153A : Assessment-Search or requisition-Addition made to the income of the assessee based on the documents viz. ‘loose sheets’ and ‘scraps of paper’ seized during a search conducted on a third party-Inadmissible evidence-Addition is not valid. [S. 132]

Rohtash v. ITO (2022) 94 ITR 56 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Dispatched by speed post within time but retuned by postal authorities-Notice never served-Reassessment proceedings in valid. [S. 147, 149]

Kalyan Jewells P. Ltd. v. ITO (2022) 94 ITR 42 (SN) (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Accommodation entries-Information from Investigation Wing-Borrowed satisfaction-Reassessment is not valid-Judicial discipline-CIT(A) is bound to follow the order of Jurisdictional Tribunal-Share capital-Letter of confirmation was filed-Addition as cash credits is not justified. [S. 68, 148, 254(1)]