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-Discrepancy in sales promotion expenses-Clarified by assessee-Plausible view after relevant inquiries-Revision is not valid.[S.37(1), 143(3), Explanation 2 to S. 263]

Sourabh Sharma v. PCIT (2024) 110 ITR 677 (Jaipur)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Survey-Surrender letter-Business income-No findings were recorded by the Principal Commissioner how the deeming provisions were applicable and the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous-Survey operation at business premises alone cannot be basis for revision.[S.68, 699, 69B, 69C 69D, 115BBE, 133A]

Ravinder Kumar Bansal v. PCIT (2024) 110 ITR 86 (Chd)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Cash deposits-Demonetisation-Sales-Retail sale of petroleum products, customer-specific records not practicable-Assessing Officer having discretion in examination of transactions and level of inquiry-Audit report available for download and examination-Assessing Officer’s choice not to download and file copy for record not prejudicial to interests of revenue-Order is not erroneous-Cash gift from mother-Failure to explain the source-Creditors-Confirmations incomplete and deficient PCIT is justified in setting aside assessment order.[S. 68, 147 148]

Ravi Sher Singh Toor v. PCIT (2024) 110 ITR 218 (Chd)(Trib)

S. 253 : Appellate Tribunal-Appeals-Penalty-Concealment-Fess payable is only Rs.500-Paid Rs.10,000-Registry is directed to refund of Rs.9500. [S. 253(6)(d), 254(1), 271(1)(c)]

S. Sagar Enterprise v. Dy. CIT (2024)110 ITR 68 (SN)(Mum)(Trib)

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Procedure-Best judgement assessment-Dismissed ex-parte-Matter restored to Assessing Officer for assessment afresh. [S. 144, 147, Form No 26AS.]

Karia Hareshbhai Bhagwandas, HUF v. ITO (2024)110 ITR 78 (SN) (Ahd)(Trib)

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Procedure-Not adjudicated on merits-Filed written submissions-Order is set aside and grounds restored to him for decision on merits, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard-Appeal filed before Bangalore bench-Time spent in filing appeal before Bangalore Bench is to be excluded-Delay in filing appeal is condoned.[S. 254(1)), Limitation Act, 1963, S.5]

Global Green Company Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2024)110 ITR 29 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Procedure-Ex-parte order-Duty of Commissioner (Appeals) to decide merits of each point arising in appeal-Matter remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) for adjudication afresh on merits after giving assessee opportunity of hearing. [S.250(4) 250(6)]

Babubhai Ramanbhai Patel v. Dy. CIT (2024)110 ITR 39 (SN)(Ahd) (Trib)

S. 246A : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Appealable orders-Only those specifically mentioned in Section-Fee-Default in furnishing the statements–Letter of ITO to assessee for recovery of outstanding demand-Not appealable. [S.234E]

Padmakar Vishwas Date v. ITO (2024)110 ITR 48 (SN)(Pune)(Trib)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Mistake apparent from the record-Unexplained investments-Survey-Payment made to vendor under Registered sale-cum-General power of Attorney agreements-Amounts received as advances from 30 Persons-Only part of sum confirmed-Agreeing to addition of balance as unexplained investment-Vendor unilaterally cancelled all General Power of attorney-cum-sale agreements by registered cancellation deeds and took back possession of property on ground that he had not received any consideration from assessee-Registered cancellation of sale deed is not valid without decree of Civil Court Rejection of rectification application is valid.[S.69,133A, Specific Relief Act, 1963, S. 31, 32, 33, Registration Act, 1908,]

Kotyala Sujatha (Smt) v. ITO (2024)110 ITR 12 (SMC) (SN) (Vishakha)(Trib)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Mistake apparent from the record-Intimation-Appeal against intimation withdrawn on ground return selected for scrutiny-Regular assessment on scrutiny made without taking into account disallowances proposed in intimation-Rectification order in respect of delayed deposit of employee contributions to the provident fund and employees Stat Insurance-Change of law-No merger of orders passed under intimation and regular assessment-Rectification is proper.[S.143(1), 143(3)]

Orient Craft Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2024) 110 ITR 622 (Delhi) (Trib)