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, and other journals
Click here to download the pdf versions of the Digest of case laws

S. 68 : Cash credits – Sale of shares – Penny stock – Denial of exemption is not justified – Addition as cash credits is deleted – Estimated commission- Addition is deleted [ S. 10(38), 45, 69C ]

Shaily Prince Goyal v. ITO ( Mum)( Trib) www.itatonline .org .

S. 271B :Penalty-Failure to get accounts audited-No penalty to be levied when Assessee has voluntarily filed audit report though belatedly and the delay in obtaining tax audit report is on account of bona fide reasons [S.274]

Manju Saran v. ITO (2023) 102 ITR 64 (Jaipur.) (Trib.)

S. 271AAA : Penalty-Search initiated on or after 1st June, 2007-Issued notice under wrong section-Non-striking off of the irrelevant limb-Levy of penalty is bad in law.[S.153A, 271(1)(c)]

Dellip Vijaykumar Kotecha v. DCIT. (2023) 102 ITR 671 (Pune)(Trib)

S. 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-Notice-AO had not struck off the inapplicable portion as to whether the levy of penalty was for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income-Penalty is not valid.[S.274]

Sonpal Singh Pal Singh Saini v. ITO (2023) 102 ITR 32 (SN) (Mum.)(Trib)

S. 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-The assessee has neither concealed the particulars of the income nor furnished such facts which lead to the furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

Ranjanben G. Kasodaria v. Dy. CIT (2023) 102 ITR 718 (Surat)(Trib.)

S.263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Not for corrections, errors & mistake-No order in existence.[S.271(1)(c), 271AAB(IA)]

Harish Jain v. PCIT [2023] 221 TTJ 276 (Jaippur) (Trib)

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Duly examined matter on mere surmise of human probability. [S. 142(1), 143(2), 143(3)]

Kanta Rani (Smt) v. PCIT (2023) 102 ITR 49 (SN) (Chd.)(Trib.)

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Assessment order which is nullity in law-Cannot be revised. [S.132A, 143(3)]

Piyush Kumar Choubey v. P CIT (2023) 221 TTJ 17 (UO) (Raipur) (Trib)

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Principal commissioner is not justified in initiating revision proceedings when proceedings have already declared under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. [Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, S. 8]

Shiva Ferric Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2023) 102 ITR 173 (Bang.)(Trib)

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-commissioner taking view explanation offered by the assessee to assessing officer not satisfactory and assessing officer had failed to conduct further enquiries, revision based on audit objection is invalid. [S. 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C, 69D, 115BBE]

Surender Kumar v. ITO (2023) 102 ITR 247/ 222 TTJ 5 ( UO) (Chd)(Trib.) Sunil Kumar v. PCIT (2023) 102 ITR 247/ 222 TTJ 5 (UO) (Chd)(Trib.) Shakti Sagar Chawla v. PCIT (2023) 102 ITR 247/ 222 TTJ 5 (UO) (Chd)(Trib.)