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-Invalid reassessment cannot be set aside under section 263-Reopened to examine cash deposits-No addition was made-Revision on the ground that the AO has wrongly allowed exemption under section 54B and 54F-Revision order is quashed and set aside.[S.54B, 54F, 147, 148]
Ashok Kumar v. PCIT (2025) 233 TTJ 988 (Delhi)(Trib)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Assessing Officer partly disallowed the claim-Reassessment order is quashed-[S. 56, 57, 263, Explanation 2.]
Rakesh Kumar Doshi v. PCIT (2025) 233 TTJ 846(Jodhpur)(Trib)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Enhanced compensation granted under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Assessing Officer treated as exempt-Jurisdictional High Court held as taxable-Revision order is affirmed. [S. 10(37), 56(2)(viii), Land Acquisition Act, 1894, 28, 34]
Jagjit Singh Kataria v. PCIT (2025) 233 TTJ 1 / 245 DTR 49 (Delhi)(Trib)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Survey-AO raised specific queries-Revision order is quashed.[S. 133A]
Ganesh Builders v. PCIT (2025) 233 TTJ 257 (Jodhpur)(Trib)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Consultation fees in the form of syndication fees for raising Convertible Cumulative Preference Shares-The AO has taken a plausible view-Revision order is set aside. [S. 143(3)]
Finova Capital (P) Ltd. v. PCIT 2025) 233 TTJ 699 (Jaipur)(Trib)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Expenditure on scientific research-Conducted detailed enquiries into claim of deduction-Revision order is quashed. [S. 35(2AB), 143(3)]
Anabond Ltd. v. PCIT (2025) 233 TTJ 761 / 246 DTR 32 (Chennai)(Trib)
S. 251 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Powers-Dismissal of appeal ex parte-CIT(A)has no power to dismiss the appeal without discussing the appeal on merits-Matter is remanded to the CIT(A) to decide the grounds on merits. [S. 250(1)]
Indu Sharma (Smt.) v. ITO (2025) 233 TTJ 113 (Amritsar)(Trib)
S. 249 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Form of appeal and limitation-No admitted income-Cash deposited in the Bank-The proviso also provides that when there is good and sufficient reasons, then the appeal can still be admitted-Matter is restored to the CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal on merits in accordance with law. [S. 69A, 249 (4)(b), 250]
Ritika Jain v. ITO (2025) 233 TTJ 619 / 245 DTR 377 (SMC) (Agra)(Trib)
S. 153C : Assessment-Income of any other person-Search year-Wrongly applied the provision of Section 153C by the CIT(A) matter is remanded to the file of CIT(A) to deecide the issue on merits-Application for adjournment is rejected. [S. 132, 143(3)255, ITAT R,1963, R. 23]
Dy.CIT v. Vamsi Mohan Vallabhaneni (2025) 233 TTJ 121 / 245 DTR 81 (Hyd)(Trib)
S. 153A: Assessment-Search-Undisclosed income-Document referred to and relied upon by the AO does not bear any signature of the assessee-Addition is deleted-Appellate Tribunal-Delay of 702 days in filing the appeal is condoned. [S. 254(1)]
Shrigopal Rameshkumar Sales (P) Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2025) 233 TTJ 747 / 246 DTR 51 (Nag)(Trib)