S. 268A : Appeal–Monetary limit-Appeal dismissed as withdrawn [S. 260A]
PCIT v. India Pistons Ltd. (2019) 267 Taxman 79 (Mad.)(HC)S. 268A : Appeal–Monetary limit-Appeal dismissed as withdrawn [S. 260A]
PCIT v. India Pistons Ltd. (2019) 267 Taxman 79 (Mad.)(HC)S. 264 : Commissioner-Revision of other orders–Rejection revised return and rectification application-Delay in filing revision application-Directed to condone the delay-CIT is directed to decide on merit. [S. 139(5), 143(1), 154, Art. 264]
Ramupillai Kuppuraj v. ITO (2019) 418 ITR 458/ 311 CTR 873/ 184 DTR 257 (Mad.)(HC)S. 264 : Commissioner-Revision of other orders–husband’s ill health-Transactions in immoveable properties–Unexplained money-Matter remanded for readjudication. [S. 69A, 143(3), Art. 226]
Daxa Bipin Dedhia (Mrs.) v. PCIT (2019) 267 Taxman 62 (Bom.)(HC)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Loan-Unclaimed money–Detailed enquiries were made in the assessment proceedings-Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 68, 143(3)]
Meerut Roller Flour Mills (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2019) 267 Taxman 18 / 311 CTR 336 / 182 DTR 168/ ( 2020) 420 ITR 216 (All.)(HC)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-Payments made to charitable institutions and expenditure towards execution of property–Rightly allowed as deduction by the AO-Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 45, 48. 143(3)]
Kumar Rajaram v. ITO (IT) (2019) 267 Taxman 65 / (2020)423 ITR 185 (Mad) (HC)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue– Addition to fixed assets–Disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act-Enquiries done by the AO in the original assessment proceedings-Revision is held to be bad in law. [S. 14A, R. 8D]
PCIT v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. (2019) 181 DTR 236/109 taxmann.com 390 / 310 CTR 599/(2020)423 ITR 180 (Cal.)(HC)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Introduction of capital-Loan from brother–NRI for two years-after detailed the AO has accepted the capital and loan as genuine-Revision is held to be not justified. [S. 69A]
CIT v. Kamal Galani (2018) 95 taxmnn.com 261 (Guj.)(HC) Editorial : SLP of revenue is dismissed; CIT v. Kamal Galani (2019) 267 taxman 114 (SC)S. 260A : Appeal-High Court–Monetary limits–Pendency of appeals-No cascading effect nor issue involved in group matters-Appeals of department is dismissed–Question is kept open. [S. 268A]
S. C. Naregal v. CIT (2019) 418 ITR 455/ 267 Taxman 563/ 311 CTR 849/ 184 DTR 247 (SC) Editorial : Decision in CIT v. S.C. Naregal (2010) 329 ITR 615 (Karn.) (HC) is set aside because of low tax effect, leaving the questions of law open.S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal–Rectification of mistake apparent on record-Where the issue before the Tribunal was of allowability of deduction, it was incorrect to remand the matter with a direction to apply transfer price provisions-AO had already passed the order, pursuant to such remand, and deleted the addition accordingly the writ petition had become academic. [S. 36(1)(iii), S. 92C, 254(1), Art. 226]
Piramal Glass (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2019) 102 taxmann.com 176/176 DTR 134 (Bom.)(HC)S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Registration–Interpretation – Powers of Tribunal are co -extensive to that of Commissioner – Tribunal can direct the Commissioner to grant the registration without reamnding matter to Commissioner. . [S.12A, 12AA]
CIT v. Reham Foundation. (2019) 418 ITR 205 / 311 CTR 756 / (2020) 268 Taxman 372 (FB) (All.)(HC)