S. 264 :Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Property held for charitable purposes-Receipts from donors who deducted tax at source-No element of trade-Principle of consistency-No change in law or facts-Department cannot take different view without convincing reasons-Entitle to exemption-Rejection of revisional order was set aside. [S. 2(15) 11, 12,12A, 12AA, 13(8),80G, 194C, 194J, Art. 226]
Aroh Foundation v. CIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 608/ (2025) 476 ITR 489 (Delhi)(HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue dismissed, CIT (E) v. Aroh Foundation. (2025) 304 Taxman 600/ 476 ITR 504 (SC)
Digest of case laws
Online digest of latest case laws
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. 264 :Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Property held for charitable purposes-Receipts from donors who deducted tax at source-No element of trade-Principle of consistency-Entitle to exemption-Rejection of revisional order was set aside-SLP of revenue dismissed. [S. 2(15) 11, 12,12A, 12AA, 13(8),80G, 194C, 194J, Art. 136]
CIT v. Aroh Foundation (2025) 476 ITR 504/304 Taxman 600 (SC) Editorial : Aroh Foundation v. CIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 608/ (2025) 476 ITR 489 (Delhi)(HC)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
Assessing Officer issued questionnaire seeking comprehensive information regarding share capital transactions Assessee furnished required details and documents and adequate enquiries conducted by Assessing Officer-Power cannot be invoked without demonstrating failure of proper inquiry-Order of Tribunal quashing the revision order was affirmed. [S. 260A]
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
Tribunal’s quashing of revision order relying on High Court decision on similar issue-Not erroneous-No substantial question of law.[S. 260A]
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
Estimation of disallowance of purchase expenses-Assessing Officer accepting sale and purchase-Disallowing an estimated five per cent. of inflated amount-Revision order was quashed. [S. 37(1), 260A]
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Share capital and Share premium-Principal Commissioner invoking revision powers for second time on same issue involving share capital and share premium-Order of Tribunal quashing the revision order was affirmed.[S. 131, 254(1), 260A]
PCIT v. Pearl Tracom Pvt. Ltd.(2025) 476 ITR 456 (Cal)(HC) Editorial : SLP of revenue was dismissed for explain satisfactorily delay of 358 days in filing SLP, PCIT v. Pearl Tracom Pvt. Ltd (2025) 476 ITR 459 (SC)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
book profits-Prior-period expenses-Hyper-technical Revision order directing addition of such amount in book profits, unsustainable-Order of Tribunal was set aside. [S. 115JA,260A]
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-Principal Commissioner had applied his mind and had not relied merely on Assessing Officer’s proposal-Order of revision valid-Order of Tribunal set aside. [S. 10(38), 143(3), 260A]
PCIT v. Bina Gupta (2025) 476 ITR 54 (Cal)(HC)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
Assessing Officer issued questionnaire seeking comprehensive information regarding share capital transactions Assessee furnished required details and documents and adequate enquiries conducted by Assessing Officer-Power cannot be invoked without demonstrating failure of proper inquiry-SLP of revenue dismissed. [Art. 136]
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
Tribunal’s quashing of revision order relying on High Court decision on similar issue-SLP of revenue dismissed on the ground of delay and on the merits. [Art. 136]