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. 271AAA : Penalty-Addition made on ad-hoc basis based on average gross profit rate, which does not relate directly to any undisclosed income unearthed during search-Penalty not sustainable. [S. 132, 133A]

Ace Steel Fab (P.) Ltd. Kashyap & Co. v. DCIT (2021) 87 ITR 52 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Addition on basis of which penalty levied deleted.

Dy.CIT v. Anurag Dalmia (2021) 87 ITR 51 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-limited scrutiny-No jurisdiction to go beyond reason for which the case was selected for limited scrutiny-Revision to consider other aspects is held to be without jurisdiction. [S. 143(3)]

Balvinder Kumar v. PCIT (2021) 187 ITD 454 / 212 TTJ 391/ 203 DTR 155 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-On the date of transfer more than one residential house-Deduction allowed without verification-Revision order was set aside and directed the AO to pass the order in accordance with law. [S. 54, 54F]

Lokesh M. v. PCIT (2021) 187 ITD 342 (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Non furnishing of approval-Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 35(2AB), R. 6(7A)(b)]

Provimi Animal Nutrition India Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2021) 187 ITD 214 / 85 ITR 9 (SN) (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Short term capital gain-Settlement Commission-Issue considered by the Settlement Commission-Revision order will be without jurisdiction. [S. 45, 245C(1), 245D(4), 245I]

Gunjan Garg v. JCIT (2021) 187 ITD 467 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Order of Transfer pricing Officer-Part of assessment record-Can be revised. [S. 92CA]

Agro Tech Foods Ltd. v. DCIT (2021) 187 ITD 763 / 211 TTJ 715/ 201 DTR 297 (Hyd.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Order of Assessing Officer was in consonance with the view taken by the Tribunal, revision order was quashed. [S. 2(14), 2(29A)(2)(47), 251]

Peerless General Finance & Investment Company Ltd. v. DCIT (2021) 87 ITR 281 / 211 TTJ 823 / 203 DTR 103 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-remuneration to working partners-as per partnership deed, remuneration is paid as per the provisions of s. 40(b)(v) and taxed at 30% in the hands of individual partner, same as the assessee firm-Assessment order framed is not erroneous and there is no prejudice to the interest of revenue. [S. 40(b)(v)]

Altmash Exports v. PCIT (2021) 87 ITR 22 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 254(2A) : Appellate Tribunal-Stay-Paid more than 51 percent of disputed tax-Stay granted. [S. 201(1), 254(1)]

Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2021) 187 ITD 488 (Bang.)(Trib.)