Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


The Indian Institute of Architects v. ITO (Mum)( Trib) www.itatonline .org

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes – Education – Study and promote the latest development in the filed of Architecture – Mere surplus arising as a result of charitable activities the Institution does not cease to be a charitable institution – Entitle to exemption. [ S. 2(15), 12A, Architect Act , 1872 ]

ACIT v. DA Jhaveri (2022) 94 ITR 35 (SN) (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 271G : Penalty-Documents-International transaction-Transfer pricing-Transactional Net Margin Method-Bifurcation of profits-Failure to furnish the details-Deletion of penalty is held to be valid. [S. 273B, R. 10D(1)]

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2022) 94 ITR 44 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 271BA : Penalty-Failure to furnish reports-International transaction-Transfer pricing-Reasonable cause-Penalty cancelled. [S. 92E, 273B]

Shoreline Hotel Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2022) 94 ITR 18 (SN) (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Relevant limb specifying charge not struck off-Penalty not leviable.

Sheth Ship Breaking Corporation v. JCIT (2022) 94 ITR 38 (SN) (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Valuation of closing stock-Less than cost price-Levy of penalty was quashed.

Pawan Garg v. ACIT (2022) 94 ITR 159 / 217 TTJ 20 (SMC) (Chd.) (Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Bonafide mistake-Claim with respect to Long term capital loss.

Proform Interiors Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 94 ITR 63 (SN) (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Non-striking off of relevant limb-lack of recording proper satisfaction by AO whether there was concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the Assessee-Non application of mind by AO-Levy of penalty is not valid. [S. 274]

Niagara Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2022) 94 ITR 24 (SN) (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Interest on borrowed capital-Loans utilised for purchase of properties and assets-Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 36(1)(iii)]

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.