S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Not representing before CIT (A) – Matter remanded to CIT (A) [S. 250 ,254 (1) ]
United Tropicon Veneers P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 78 ITR 299( Cochin) (Trib)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Not representing before CIT (A) – Matter remanded to CIT (A) [S. 250 ,254 (1) ]
United Tropicon Veneers P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 78 ITR 299( Cochin) (Trib)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Notice not specifying charge -Natural justice — Show-cause notice void ab initio- Levy of penalty is not valid [ S.274 ]
Risha Tour And Travels v. ITO (2020) 78 ITR 77 (Luck ) (Trib)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment -Not specifying the charge- Notice vague — Levy of penalty not sustainable.[ S.274 ]
Rajendra Kumar Khandelwal v. Dy. CIT (2020)78 ITR 252( Jaipur) (Trib)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Failure to furnish details of persons from whom donations received — Not a case of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income — Penalty not leviable . [ S. 11, 132 ]
Meenakshi Ammal Trust v .ACIT (2020)78 ITR 138 / 186 DTR 257/203 TTJ 785 (Chennai) (Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – -Fees from students -Explanation was furnished at the original assessment proceedings – Revision is held to be not valid . [ S.2(15)),12A,143(3) ]
Shugan Chandra Kothari Trust v. CIT(E) (2020)78 ITR 340 ( Delhi) (Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Source of funds from abroad —Commissioner not conducting enquiry to find order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue — Revision not valid.
Seth Madan Lal Palriwala Foundation v. CIT (E) (2020)78 ITR 436 / 196 DTR 169( Delhi) (Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Prior period income – Disclosure before Settlement Commission —Neither erroneous nor causing prejudice to interests of revenue – Revision is held to be not valid . [ S.43B 115JB ]
Maithan Steel and Power Ltd. v. PCIT (2020)78 ITR 532 / 208 TTJ 334(Kol) (Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Business expenditure – Provision for warranty – Record includes all documents available with department even for earlier years- Revision is held to be not valid. [ S .92CA(4),144C(3), 263(1b) ]
SL Lumax Ltd. v. PCIT (2020) 78 ITR 1 (SN) ( Chennai ) (Trib )S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Interest income- Business income or income from other sources – View already taken by Assessing Officer after calling for explanation and considering submission — View could not be held to be illegal or unsustainable in law — Revision is held to be not valid.
Asian Homes P. Ltd. v. PCIT (2020)78 ITR 240 (Mum) (Trib)S.253: Appellate Tribunal – Maintainability of appeal — Corporate debtor against whom moratorium order passed – Institution of suit against Corporate debtor prohibited — Provisions of the IBC Code over any other enactment in case of conflicting provisions, by virtue of a non-obstante clause contained in section 238 of the IBC Code- Appeal by department against assessee is not maintainable [S.268A , Insolvency And Bankruptcy Code, 2016, S. 14, 238 , ITAT, Rules 26 ]
Shamken Multifab Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2020)78 ITR 214/ 190 DTR 77/180 ITD 756 /205 TTJ 696 ( Delhi) (Trib)/Dy. CIT v. Arhum Syntex (P) Ltd (2020)78 ITR 214/ 190 DTR 77/180 ITD 756 /205 TTJ 696 ( Delhi) (Trib) Dy.CIT v. Shamken Cotsyn Ltd (2020)78 ITR 214/ 190 DTR 77/180 ITD 756 /205 TTJ 696 ( Delhi) (Trib) Dy.CIT v. Shamken Spinner Ltd (2020)78 ITR 214/ 190 DTR 77/180 ITD 756 /205 TTJ 696 ( Delhi) (Trib)