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-Merely because explanations and documents not filed before Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings-Revision is not valid.

Madhya Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. v. PCIT (2024)110 ITR 21 (SN)(Ahd)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Assessing Officer has properly verified issues during original assessment-Expenditure on exempt income-Query raised in the course of assessment proceedings-Reply filed-Employment of new employees-In continuation of earlier years-Revision is not valid-Revision order is quashed-Revision on issue not included in notice-Revision is beyond scope of notice and not permissible. [S. 14A,80JJA, 143(3), R.8D]]

GSP Crop Science P. Ltd. v. PCIT (2024) 110 ITR 24 (SN)(Ahd)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Revision Lease equalisation charges-Method of accounting-Following Accounting Standard-19 in respect of rent and lease charges paid-Debiting lease equalisation charges to profit and loss account, but adding it back to total income-Assessing Officer carrying out required enquiries-Assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.[S. 145, Accounting Standard-19]

FCA Engineering India P. Ltd. v. PCIT (2024)110 ITR 61 (SN)(Chennai)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Discrepancy in sales promotion expenses-Clarified by assessee-Plausible view after relevant inquiries-Revision is not valid.[S.37(1), 143(3), Explanation 2 to S. 263]

Sourabh Sharma v. PCIT (2024) 110 ITR 677 (Jaipur)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Survey-Surrender letter-Business income-No findings were recorded by the Principal Commissioner how the deeming provisions were applicable and the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous-Survey operation at business premises alone cannot be basis for revision.[S.68, 699, 69B, 69C 69D, 115BBE, 133A]

Ravinder Kumar Bansal v. PCIT (2024) 110 ITR 86 /232 TTJ 621 (Chd)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Cash deposits-Demonetisation-Sales-Retail sale of petroleum products, customer-specific records not practicable-Assessing Officer having discretion in examination of transactions and level of inquiry-Audit report available for download and examination-Assessing Officer’s choice not to download and file copy for record not prejudicial to interests of revenue-Order is not erroneous-Cash gift from mother-Failure to explain the source-Creditors-Confirmations incomplete and deficient PCIT is justified in setting aside assessment order.[S. 68, 147 148]

Ravi Sher Singh Toor v. PCIT (2024) 110 ITR 218 (Chd)(Trib)

S. 253 : Appellate Tribunal-Appeals-Penalty-Concealment-Fess payable is only Rs.500-Paid Rs.10,000-Registry is directed to refund of Rs.9500. [S. 253(6)(d), 254(1), 271(1)(c)]

S. Sagar Enterprise v. Dy. CIT (2024)110 ITR 68 (SN)(Mum)(Trib)

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Procedure-Best judgement assessment-Dismissed ex-parte-Matter restored to Assessing Officer for assessment afresh. [S. 144, 147, Form No 26AS.]

Karia Hareshbhai Bhagwandas, HUF v. ITO (2024)110 ITR 78 (SN) (Ahd)(Trib)

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Procedure-Not adjudicated on merits-Filed written submissions-Order is set aside and grounds restored to him for decision on merits, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard-Appeal filed before Bangalore bench-Time spent in filing appeal before Bangalore Bench is to be excluded-Delay in filing appeal is condoned.[S. 254(1)), Limitation Act, 1963, S.5]

Global Green Company Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2024)110 ITR 29 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Procedure-Ex-parte order-Duty of Commissioner (Appeals) to decide merits of each point arising in appeal-Matter remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) for adjudication afresh on merits after giving assessee opportunity of hearing. [S.250(4) 250(6)]

Babubhai Ramanbhai Patel v. Dy. CIT (2024)110 ITR 39 (SN)(Ahd) (Trib)