Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


FCI Asia Pte Ltd. vs. DCIT (2021) 212 TTJ 9 (UO) (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income-Assessee intimated Assessing Officer well in advance of inadvertence of including receipt-Assessing Officer did not specify in notice whether notice is issued for concealing income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. [S. 143(2)]

Villo Noshir Anklesaria (Mrs.) v. ACIT (2021) 89 ITR 31 (SN) (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Disclosing full facts-Levy of penalty is held to be not justified. [S. 54F]

Virendra Singh Bhadauriya v. PCIT (2021) 211 TTJ 452 / 204 DTR 400 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Revision of orders prejudicial to Revenue-Twin conditions to be satisfied-Assessment order cannot be said to be erroneous in law-Revision was quashed. [S. 54F]

Mahendra Singh Dhankar HUF v. ACIT (2021) 212 TTJ 902 / 204 DTR 377 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limited scrutiny-The Revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 cannot be exercised for broadening the scope of jurisdiction that was originally vested with the A.O for limited scrutiny while framing the assessment and enlarging his scope of limited enquiry. [S. 143(3), 147]

Goldmohar Design and Apparel Park Ltd. v. PCIT (2021) 209 TTJ 863 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Depreciation-Lease hold rights-Revision is held to be valid. [S. 32(1)(ii)]

Nimmala Srinivas (HUF) v. ACIT (2021) 89 ITR 10 (SN) (Hyd.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-No finding that the order is erroneous and prejudicial interest of revenue-Revision was held to be not valid-Disallowance of commission was held to be justified-Once the income is accepted in the Hand of HUF the said income cannot be assessed in the hands of individual. [S. 45]

Piyush Mohan Agarwal v. PCIT (2021) 89 ITR 626 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Interest expenditure-Assumption of jurisdiction based on incorrect facts-Revision is held to be in valid. [S. 37(1)]

D.S. Patil v. PCIT (2021) 89 ITR 483 (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Penalty Not subjected to search-Penalty cannot be Levied-Revision of order dropping penalty proceedings was quashed. [S. 132, 153C, 271AAB]

Motia Construction Ltd. v. DCIT (2021) 212 TTJ 398 / 90 ITR 103/ 203 DTR 365 (Chd.)(Trib.)

S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Order of the Tribunal, accepting the withdrawal of the appeals, passed on incorrect facts which were mistakenly represented and admitted by assessee’s counsel has resulted in an error in such Order and is liable for rectification. [S. 263]

DCIT v. Saroj Kumar Poddar (2021) 212 TTJ 250 / 90 ITR 223 / 203 DTR 81 (Kol.) (Trib.)

S. 254(1) : Appeal to Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Request for adjournments of six months on account of COVID-19 pandemic was rejected-Lat opportunity was granted.