This Digest of case laws is prepared by KSA Legal and AIFTP from judgements reported in BCAJ, CTR, DTR, ITD, ITR, ITR (Trib), Chamber's Journal, SOT, Taxman, TTJ, BCAJ, ACAJ, www.itatonline.org and other journals
Click here to download the pdf versions of the Digest of case laws
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Housing projects-Principle of consistency applied to an order under section 263 of the Act as well-Revision was barred by limitation-Issue was not subject of reassessment proceedings-Assessing Officer adopting permissible view-Revision is held to be invalid. [S. 80IB(10), 263(2)]
Nilkanth Developers v. PCIT (2021) 88 ITR 11 (SN) (Surat)(Trib.)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Issue subject matter of appeal-Commissioner is not barred from exercising power of revision-Interest free funds-Direction was modified-Failure to deduct ta at source-Production expenses-Revision was held to be valid. [S. 36(1)(iii), 40(a)(ia), 263, Expln. 1(c)]
MAD Studios Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2021) 88 ITR 37 (SN) (Mum.)(Trib.)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Revision of reassessment order-Reassessment was farmed without issue of mandatory notice under section 143(2) of the Act-Not curable defects-Revision assessment order which was non est in law is null and void. [S. 143(2), 143(3), 147, 148, 292BB]
Khushi Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2021) 88 ITR 14 (SN) (Kol.) (Trib.)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Long term capital loss-Audit objection-Assessing Officer depending his view in response to audit query-Revision order is held to be not valid. [S. 143(3)]
Grasim Industries Ltd. v. PCIT (2021) 88 ITR 47 (SN) (Mum.)(Trib.)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limited scrutiny-Revision directing the Assessing Officer to make fresh assessment on issues not subject matter of limited scrutiny – Revision is bad in law. [S. 142(1) 143(2)]
Taj Paul Bhardwaj v. PCIT (2021)88 ITR 352 / 211 TTJ 58 (Chd.) (Trib.)
S. 253 : Appellate Tribunal-Monetary limits-Penalty-Exception provided in para 10(e) of Circular No. 17 of 2019 (2019) 426 ITR 106 (St), applicable only for quantum proceedings and cannot be applicable for penalty proceedings – Appeal is not maintainable. [S. 254(1), 271(1)(c)]
Dy. CIT v. Aluvind Architectural Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 88 ITR 421 (Mum.) (Trib.)
S. 251 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Power of enhancement-No jurisdiction to travel beyond record-Appeal against cash credits-Enhancement cannot be made for making estimate commission of 2 Per Cent of commission. [S. 68, 251(1)(a)]
ITO v. Angel Cement Pvt. Ltd. (2021)88 ITR 616 (Delhi)(Trib.)
S. 153C : Assessment-Income of any other person-Search-Opportunity of cross examination. Was not given-Addition is not valid-Order passed u/s. 143(3) is bad in law-Order ought to have been passed u/s. 153C. [S. 132, 143(3), 153A]
Co-Operative Co. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2021)88 ITR 322 (Delhi)(Trib.)
S. 153A : Assessment-Search or requisition-No incriminating material was found-Addition cannot be made merely on the basis of post dated cheques without any corroborative evidence. [S. 132]
Elite Realtech Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2021) 88 ITR 401 (Delhi)(Trib.)
S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-Additional ground was admitted-Delay in filing the appeal was condoned-Sanction was mechanical, without application of mind-Order of reassessment was quashed. [S. 147,148, 151, 253, 254(1)]
TEK Chand v. ITO (2021) 88 ITR 392 (Chd.)(Trib.)