S. 264 :Commissioner – Revision of other orders -Business expenditure -Real income -Non filing of revised return cannot be the ground to reject the application [ S. 37(i) ]
Hitech Analytical Services v. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 479/( 2019) 306 CTR 270 / 173 DTR 157(Guj) (HC)
Digest of case laws
Online digest of latest case laws
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 – Educational expenses of director at abroad- Expenditure allowable or not requires greater scrutiny therefore revision was held to be justified [ S. 37(1) ]
Hunumesh Realtors (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2018) 168 ITD 87 (Mum) (Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –Exemption was claimed in respect of share of profit was credited to partners account – Two views possible – Revision was held to be not valid [ S.10(2A)]
Vinod Agarwal v. CIT (2018) 61 ITR 598 (Kol) (Trib) Shyam Sundar Agarwal v. CIT (2018) 61 ITR 598 (Kol) (Trib) Ramnaresh Agarwal v. CIT (2018) 61 ITR 598 (Kol) (Trib) Pawan Kumar Agarwal v. CIT (2018) 61 ITR 598 (Kol) (Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Capital gains — Cost of acquisition —Tribunal directed the assesse to file relevant documents and directed the AO to decide accordance with law . [ S.45, 48 ]
Pravinbhai Mafatlal Joshi v. ITO (2018) 61 ITR 775 (Ahd.) (Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Derivative loss – Setting a side of order without giving any finding was held to be bad in law [ S.43(5) ]
Sadhana Stocks & Securities (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2018) 168 ITD 499 (Kol) (Trib.)S. 263: Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Even if there is lack of inquiry by the AO and the assessment order is “erroneous” under Explanation 2 to s. 263, the order is not “prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue” [ S. 2(43),40(a)(v)115JB]
Rashriya Chemicals & Fertilizer Limited v. CIT ( 2018) 91 taxmann.com 104 (Mum)(Trib) , www.itatonline.orgS. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Source of capital contribution was explained – Source of the source cannot be gone in to – Revision was held to be bad in law [ S. 68 ]
Prayag Tendu Leaves Processing Co. v. CIT (2018) 400 ITR 120 / 252 Taxman 306 (Jharkand) (HC)S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Income from letting out shops – Income from house property or business income – Two views possible – Revision was held to be not valid
PCIT v. Atlantis Multiplex P. Ltd. (2018) 400 ITR 458 (All) (HC)S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Enhancement of agricultural income -Failure to make proper enquiry by the AO in the course of assessment proceedings , revision was held to be valid – Tribunal was justified in admitting the additional evidence which was filed by the revenue [ S. 254(1) ]
Virbhadra Singh (HUF) v. CIT (2018) 400 ITR 530 (HP) (HC)S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –Gift- Conclusion drawn by Assessing Officer was consistent with information provided by donors therefore revision was held to be not valid .[ S. 68 ]
Sunil Kumar Rastogi v. CIT (2018) 406 ITR 306/252 Taxman 293 (All)(HC)