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-Audit objection-AO has conducted the required enquiry and not violated any of the conditions mentioned for revision of order as required by Expln. 2 of S. 263- Revision order is quashed. [S. 143(3)]

Jain Carrying Corporation v. PCIT ((2024) 229TTJ 17 (UO) (Jodhpur)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Project completion method and percentage completion method-Accounting method-Guidance note-Assessing Officer has verified in the original assessment proceedings-Revision order is set aside.[S. 143(3), 145]

RDC Ventures v. PCIT (2024) 229 TTJ 369 / 38 NYPTTJ 208 / 159 taxmann.com 395 (Mum)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Survey-Specific query on undisclosed income in the course off assessment proceedings-Deeming provision is not applicable-Revision is not justified [S. 68, 69,69D, 115BBE, 133A]

Mohan Singh v. PCIT (2024) 229 TTJ 352 237 DTR 97 / 38 NYPTTJ 4 (Chd)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Lack of proper enquiry-Educational activities-Rental income exemption-Gross receipts earned from carrying out educational activity-Revision order is quashed and set aside.[S.10(23C)(vi)]

Durgapur Society of Management Science v. ITO (2024) 229 TTJ 458 / 237 DTR 137 / 38 NYPTTJ 125 (Kol) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Deposit from customers-Lack of proper enquiry- Cash deposit in bank-Revision is valid. [S. 143(3)

Amit Kumar Agarwal v.PCIT (2024) 229 TTJ 473 / 237 DTR 209 / 38 NYPTTJ 509 (Agra)(Trib)

S. 244A : Refunds-Interest on refunds-NFAC is directed to take cognizance of the proposition that interest under s. 244A has to be granted upto the date when the actual refund was received while deciding the matter.[S. 143(1), 234D]

Lata Mangeshkar Medical Foundation v. DCIT (E) (2024) 229 TTJ 716 / 237 DTR 260 / 38 NYPTTJ 393 / 166 taxmann.com 427 (Pune)(Trib)

S. 194A : Deduction at source-Interest other than interest on securities-Excess interest retained by nonbanking financial companies-loans purchased by bank-Upfront payment and allowing the originating NBFCs to retain part interest on such loan paid by the borrowers-No obligation to deduct tax at source-NBFCs have already offered to tax in their returns of income the interest earned on loans sold to the assessee-Levy of tax under section 201 (1) and levy of interest u/s 201(IA ) for failure to deduct u/s 194A, 194H or 194J is not applicable. [S.2(28A 194A, 194H, 194J 201(1), 201(IA)]

State Bank of India v. DCIT (2024) 229 TTJ 721 / 239 DTR 129 / 38 NYPTTJ 606 (Mum) (Trib)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Mistake apparent from the record-Survey-Stock offered-Assessed as business income-Rectification order is quashed. [S.69D, 115BBE, 143(3)]

Sanjay Gupta v.ACIT (2024) 229 TTJ 29 (UO)(SMC ) (Jaipur )(Trib)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Mistake apparent from the record-Limitation-Non-service of intimation under S. 143(1)-The four year limitation seeking rectification starts ticking the moment the assessee is in receipt of the order-Rejection of application being time barred is not justified.[S.80P(2), 143(1), 154(7)]

Shree Jay Limbach Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. v. ITO (2024) 229 TTJ 100 / 236 DTR 273 / 38 NYPTTJ 391(SMC ) (Ahd)(Trib)

S. 153D : Assessment-Search-Approval–A common and consolidated approval has been granted-Approval is bad in law-Order is quashed. [S. 153A]

Veena Singh v. ACIT (2024) 229 TTJ 898 / 238 DTR 294 / 38 NYPTTJ 519 (Delhi) (Trib)