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. 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-Quantum against-Quantum decided against alone was not sufficient for initiation of penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. [S.80GGC]
Anjali Neeraj Hardikar v. NFAC(2024) 111 ITR 15 (SN) (Mum)(Trib.)
S. 271(1)(C) : Penalty-Concealment-Remuneration and interest on capital received from the firm as a partner-Assessing officer processed original return though the claim may be wrong-No issue as regards concealment of particulars of income, not a fit case for levy of penalty. [S.44AD]
Anandkumar Salooja v. Dy. CIT (2024) 111 ITR 95 (SN)(Chennai)(Trib.)
S. 270A:Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income-Gratuity-Claiming exemption-Public sector undertaking-Not Government-Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd-Levy of penalty is not valid.[S.10(10AA)(ii), 270A(8)]
Adinath Vasantrao Wandhekar v. ITO (2024) 111 ITR 28 (SN)/ 165 taxmann.com 288/229 TTJ 525/237 DTR 265 (Pune)(Trib.)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limited scrutiny-Declared net profit from business more than 8 Per Cent. of total turnover-Furnished all details in the course of assessment proceedings-Revision is not justified.[S.44AD, 143(3)]
Shail P. Shah (HUF) v. PCIT (2024)111 ITR 8 (SN)(Ahd) (Trib)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Dividend-Allocation of expenses-Order of Assessing Officer is not erroneous-Limited scrutiny-Enquiry as to source of investment in mutual fund units neither envisaged nor called for Revision order is quashed.[S. 10(35), 142(1), 143(3)]
Sampark Management Consultancy LLP v. PCIT (2024)111 ITR 18 (SN)/ 230 TTJ 735/ 241 DTR 84 (Delhi) (Trib)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Revision-Possible-Commissioner giving directions to Assessing Officer without pointing out how view taken by Assessing Officer was wrong-Revision is quashed.[S. 142(1), 143(3)]
Linde India Ltd. v. PCIT (2024)111 ITR 91 (SN)(Kol)(Trib)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Income from other sources-Compensation for acquisition of agricultural land-Interest on compensation-Two views possible-Revision order is quashed. [S.4, 56(2)(vii) 143(3), Land Acquisition Act, 1894,S. 28]
Jai Parkash v. PCIT (2024)111 ITR 80 (SN)(Delhi)(Trib)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Order in the name of deceased-Invalid assessment could not be revised-Revision order is quashed. [S.50C, 143(3)]
Bhavnaben K. Punjani (Smt (v. PCIT (2024) 206 ITD 30 (Rajkot)(Trib)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limited Scrutiny-The other issues related to revision were duly scrutinised and accepted by the AO by taking into consideration full details filed by the assessee-Revision order is quashed. [S.14A, 36(1(iii), 80JJAA(b)]
V-con Integrated Solutions P. Ltd. v. PCIT (2024) 112 ITR 118 (Chd) (Trib)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue AO conducted a proper inquiry and after proper application of mind-taking permissible view-PCIT was wrong in holding the order of AO erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. [115JB, 143(3), 144C]
SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd. v. PCIT (2024) 111 ITR 95 (Kol)(Trib.)