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. 264 :Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Capital gains-Intimation under section 143(1) is an order amenable to revision jurisdiction-Matter remanded to the Principle Commissioner to pass s fresh order on application of assessee.[S. 45, 48, 143(1), 264 Art. 226]

Gopal Vazirani v. PCIT (2024) 298 Taxman 515/466 ITR 376 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Method of accounting-Closing stock-Not recorded a specific finding that it was a case of no enquiry by Assessing Officer-Order of Tribunal quashing the revision order is affirmed.[S.145(3), 260A]

CIT v. Gopal Sharma (2024) 298 Taxman 49 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue- Cash credits-Share application money-Second revisionery order-Order of Tribunal setting aside second revisionery order is affirmed. [S. 68, 143(3), 260A]

PCIT (Central) v. Rani Sati Agro Tech (P.) Ltd. (2024) 298 Taxman 498 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Business expenditure-Assessing Officer has applied his mind-Order of revision set aside by the Tribunal is affirmed. [S. 37(1), 57, 143(3), 260A]

PCIT v. Mohak Real Estate (P.) Ltd. (2024) 298 Taxman 362 /336 CTR 808 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Bad debt-Provision for bad and doubtful debts-Schedule bank-Questions were asked in the course of assessment proceedings-Replies are filed-Revision is held to be not valid-No substantial question of law. [S.36(1)(viia), 260A]

PCIT v. Clix Finance India (P.) Ltd. (2024) 298 Taxman 217 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Depreciation-Internal Audit party-Assets were not put to use-Assessment order is neither erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of Revenue-Order of Tribunal is affirmed-No substantial question. of law.[S.32, 260A]

PCIT v. Maheshwari Logistics Ltd. (2024) 298 Taxman 665 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-Cost of improvement-Cost of acquisition-Paid to shareholders under Family Settlement-Relinquishment of rights-Encumbrance charges as cost of improvement-Revision order is affirmed-Review petition is dismissed. [45, 48, 50A, 55(1))b), Art. 136]

Paville Projects (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2024) 298 Taxman 746/337 CTR 880 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Paville Projects (P.) Ltd (2023) 293 Taxman 38/ 453 ITR 447/332 CTR 28/ 224 DTR 185 (SC)

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Prosecution-Appeal against acquittal undr code of 1973-High Court has power or jurisdiction to condone delay in filing an application seeking leave to appeal against an acquittal or in entertaining an appeal against acquittal under Code of 1973 [S. 279, Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, 378, Limitation Act, 1963, S. 5, 24, Art. 14, 136, 226]

ITD v. Dattaraj Vassudeva Salgaoncar (2024) 298 Taxman 778 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Delay of 286 days-Order was passed by Prothonotary & Senior Master, rejecting revenue’s appeal for non-removal of office objections-All notice of motions were dismissed by High Court-SLP of Revenue is dismissed. [Art 136]

PCIT v. Akruti City Ltd. (2024) 298 Taxman 1 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Akruti City Ltd (2018) 94 taxmann.com 725 (Bom)(HC)

S. 254(2A): Appellate Tribunal-Stay-Political parties-Denial of exemption-Rejection of stay by the Tribunal-Tribunal is justified in rejecting the stay application. [S. 13A(2), 226, Art. 226]

Indian National Congress v. Dy. CIT (2024) 298 Taxman 630 /463 ITR 182/337 CTR 802 (Delhi)(HC)