S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-No change in tax liability–Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 45(2), 48, 50C, 54EC]
Late Shri Ramavtar Gupta v. PCIT (2020) 185 DTR 385 /203 TTJ 643 (Jaipur)(Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-No change in tax liability–Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 45(2), 48, 50C, 54EC]
Late Shri Ramavtar Gupta v. PCIT (2020) 185 DTR 385 /203 TTJ 643 (Jaipur)(Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Interest received by head office is chargeable to tax or not is a debatable issue-Revision cannot be initiated on the basis of retrospective amendment as the AO has to proceed on the basis of law prevailing as on the date of assessments-Revision is held to be not valid-DTAA-India-USA. [S. 9(1)(v)(c), Art.14(6)]
JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. v. Dy.CIT (2020) 185 DTR 305 /203 TTJ 443 (Mum.)(Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-The AO failed to make any inquiry on vital aspects while admitting the claim of the assessee and allowing the claim summarily-Revision is held to be justified-The AO could not expand the scope of inquiry while passing the order under s.143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act. [S. 54B, 143(3)]
Riddhish B. Trivedi v. CIT (2020) 186 DTR 41 / 203 TTJ 634 (Ahd.)(Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue–Non-resident–Foreign assignment allowance–Revision is held to be bad in law-AO enquire into the issue of taxability of foreign assignment allowance but had consciously applied his mind to the facts made available before him and adopted the view permissible in law. [S. 5(2), 9(ii)]
Bodhisattva Chattopadhyay v. CIT(2020) 185 DTR 89/ 203 TTJ 26 (Kol.)(Trib.)S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)–Procedure–Additional evidence-Remand–Evidence collected during appellate proceedings–Opportunity was not given to the AO-Matter set aside to the file of AO. [S. 246A, R. 46A]
ACIT v. Par Excellence Leasing & Financial Services (P) Ltd. (2020) 186 DTR 129 / 203 TTJ 743 (Delhi)(Trib.)S. 147 : Reassessment–Within four years-Change of opinion-Capital gains on sale of agricultural land-No failure to disclose material facts-Approval granted was without application of mind – Reassessment is held to be bad in law. [S. 2(IA), 10(1), 115JB, 148, 151]
Krish Homes (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2020) 186 DTR 177 / 78 ITR 101 / 203 TTJ 909 (Jaipur)(Trib.)S. 147 : Reassessment–With in four years-Failure to deduct tax at source–Merely on the doubt about applicability of tax deducted at source, reassessment is held to be not valid. [S. 40(a)(ia), 148]
Eagle Burgmann India Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2020) 185DTR 401 / 203 TTJ 477 (Mum.)(Trib.)S. 124 : Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer-Jurisdiction of AO cannot be called in question by assessee after expiry of one month from date of which he was served with notice u/s. 142(1) or after completion of assessment, which was to be earlier. [S. 142(1)]
Thiagarajar Mills (P) Ltd. v. JCIT (2020) 185 DTR 121 / 203 TTJ 367 (Chennai) (Trib.)S. 92CA : Reference to transfer pricing officer–Additional grounds-Jurisdiction-Joint Commissioner–Joint Commissioner of Income-tax-Addl. CIT can act TPO. [S. 2(28C), 92CA(7), 116(cc), 116cca)]
Eaton Industrial Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2020) 185 DTR 41 / 203 TTJ 1 (Pune)(Trib.)S. 92C : Transfer pricing–Arm’s length price–No transfer pricing adjustment can be made on transactions with the non-AEs– Matter remanded.
Eaton Industrial Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2020) 185 DTR 41 / 203 TTJ 1 (Pune) (Trib.)