S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
Cash credits-Cash deposit-Demonetisation-Revision is held to be justified. [S. 68, 143 (3), 260A]
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
Cash credits-Cash deposit-Demonetisation-Revision is held to be justified. [S. 68, 143 (3), 260A]
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Transfer of shares-Capital gains-Colourable device-Dividend distribution tax-Merely recipient of income and was not entity which had either declared or paid dividend, revisionary proceedings were not justified-DTAA-India-Singapore [S. 45, 47(iv), 115-0, 260A, Art. 13]
CIT v. Genpact Consulting Singapore PTE Ltd. (2025) 302 Taxman 470(Delhi)(HC)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Commercial substance-Royalty-Fees for technical services-Order of the Tribunal quashing the revision order is affirmed-DTAA-India-Singapore. [S. 9(1)(vi), 9(1)(vii), 260A, Art. 12]
CIT v. Zebra Technologies Asia Pacific Pet. Ltd. (2025) 302 Taxman 380 (Delhi) (HC)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital asset-Solitary transaction-Sold without development-Assessing Officer accepted the claim as capital gains-Two plausible view-Order of High Court quashing the revision order is affirmed.[S. 2(14), 45, Art. 136]
CIT v. Embassy Brindavan Developers (2025) 302 Taxman 362 (SC) Editorial : Embassy Brindavan Developers v.CIT (2023) 291 Taxman 188/ 457 ITR 234 (Karn)(HC)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Depreciation-Order passed by Assessing Officer relying on the decision of Tribunal-Subsequently set aside by High Court-Revision is not valid-Order of High Court is affirmed. [S. 32, 143(3), Art. 136]
CIT, LTU v. Canara Bank (2025) 302 Taxman 369 (SC) Editorial : CIT, LTU v. Canara Bank (2021) 277 Taxman 215 (Karn)(HC)S. 254(2A): Appellate Tribunal-Stay-No coercive or precipitative steps had been taken by revenue-Stay petition cannot be dismissed as premature-Matter remanded to the Tribunal to decide on merits. [S. 92C, Art.226]
Samsung India Electronics (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2025) 302 Taxman 537 (Delhi)(HC)S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Limitation-Appellate Tribunal has no power to condone the delay-The Appellate Tribunal being a creature of the Statute cannot extend its jurisdiction beyond what is expressly conferred on it under the Statute-Order of Tribunal is set aside. [S.254(1), 260A]
Knowell Realtors (India) (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2025) 302 Taxman 433 / 482 ITR 423 (Ker.)(HC)S. 251 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Powers-Disciplinary proceedings against Commissioner (Appeals)-Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer-Delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings against respondent, six months prior to retirement of respondent, was fatal-Writ petition of Revenue is dismissed. [Art. 226]
UOI v. Vinay Kumar (2025) 302 Taxman 280 (Gauhati)(HC)S. 244A : Refund-Interest on refunds-Wrong PAN Number by the Depositor-The Revenue cannot be responsible-Not entitle to interest on refunds. [S.194C, Form No 16A, Art. 226]
Surya Construction v. UOI (2025) 302 Taxman 387 (Gauhati)(HC)S. 234C : Interest-Deferment of advance tax-COVID-19 pandemic-Dismissal of waiver application is set aside-Matter remanded to CCIT for a denovo consideration. [S.208, 209, Art. 226]
Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Chief CIT (Central) (2025) 302 Taxman 194 (Bom.)(HC)