S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Vague allegation-Not specifying specific charge-0levy of penalty is not valid. [S. 274]
Harshvardhan v. Dy. CIT (2020)77 ITR 81 (SN) / 195 DTR 145/ 206 TTJ 894(Bang.)(Trib.)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Vague allegation-Not specifying specific charge-0levy of penalty is not valid. [S. 274]
Harshvardhan v. Dy. CIT (2020)77 ITR 81 (SN) / 195 DTR 145/ 206 TTJ 894(Bang.)(Trib.)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment-Inapplicable words in notice not struck off-Penalty order not specifying exactly under which limb penalty is levied-Penalty is held to be unjustified. [S. 274]
Dibyajyoti Chemicals P. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2020) 77 ITR 40 (SN) (Cuttack) (Trib.)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Survey–Surrender of income– No difference between returned income and assessed income– Penalty is not leviable–As regards non disclosure of rental income-Penalty is leviable. [S. 22, 133A]
Rajendra Shringi v. Dy. CIT (2020) 77 ITR 85 (SN) (Jaipur)(Trib.)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Sale of fixed asset-Slump sale-Amount not offered as income-Levy of penalty is justified-Not striking off relevant limb of notice–Reply filed in response to notice –Presumption is that the assessee has understood the notice. [S. 50B, 50C, 274]
Muthukumaran Rangarajan v. ITO (2020) 77 ITR 421/ 185 ITR 365 / 192 DTR 263/ 206 TTJ 746 (Chennai) (Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limitation-Doctrine of merger-Revision on issues not subject matter of reassessment but pertaining to original assessment-Limitation would run from date of order of original assessment and not from date of order of reassessment-Revision barred by limitation. [S. 143(3), 147, 263(2)]
Shyam Steel Manufacturing Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2020)77 ITR 37 (SN) (Kok.)(Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Sequence of events such as sale, purchase and other consequential transactions not discussed by AO-Revision is held to be valid. [S. 54F]
Muzaffer Mahmood Khan v. PCIT (2020) 77 ITR 62 (SN) (Pune) (Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Allowing depreciation at 100% and allowance of finance cost which is attributable to period prior to commencement of business-Revision is held to be valid. [S. 32, 37(1)]
Delhi Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2020) 77 ITR 22 (SN)/185 DTR 185 /203 TTJ 359 (Delhi)(Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue– Limited scrutiny–AO is bound to make prima facie enquiry– Revision is held to be valid–Capital or revenue-On merit foreign exchange loss for acquiring capital asset is held to be allowable as revenue expenditure. [S. 43(1), 143(1)]
Baby Memorial Hospital Ltd. v. ACIT (2019) 184 DTR 361/ 202 TTJ 913 / (2020) 77 ITR 484 (SN) (Cochin.) (Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue–Lack of enquiry and non application of mind–Revision is held to be valid – Repayment of brought forward loan–Revision is held to be not valid–Revision is up held partially. [S. 2(22)(e), 43B, 68]
Anand Lilaram Raisinghani v. PCIT (2020) 77 ITR 431 (Mum.)(Trib.)S. 254(2A) : Appellate Tribunal–Stay-Garnishee notices-Department should wait till disposal of stay petition-Interim stay is granted and garnishee proceedings placed under suspension till disposal of stay petition. [S. 226(3), 254(1)]
Cleared Secured Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2020) 77 ITR 93 (SN) / 186 DTR 105 / 203 TTJ 657 (Mum.)(Trib.)