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-Disclosing full facts-Levy of penalty is held to be not justified. [S. 54F]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

S. 253 : Appellate Tribunal-Order of CIT(A) quashing the reassessment proceedings in the absence of valid sanction under section 151 not challenged before Appellate Tribunal-Appeal not maintainable on merits of the case. [S. 143(2), 147, 151, 253(2)]

ACIT v. SG Portfolio (P) Ltd. (2021) 211 TTJ 970 / 201 DTR 393 (Delhi)(Trib.)