Click here to download the pdf versions of the Digest of case laws Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 .
S.4:Filing of declaration and particulars to be furnished Rectification of order — Allegation of false declaration- Determination of tax attained finality- Once certificate is issued by Designated Authority — Rectification notice is barred by limitation .[ S. 3, 4(6), 5 , ITAct , 154 , Art. 226, Form No 5 ]
Satish Kumar Dhingra v. Dy. CIT (2024)467 ITR 574 (Delhi)(HC)S. 250 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Non-speaking order – Procedure Cash credits – Un secured loan from Magunta exports – Return showing nil income –Duty of CIT(A) – Duty to give reasons for order – Conclusions were in the nature of ipse dixit and no supporting reasons were discernible – Order of CIT(A) confirming the addition is set aside – Matter remanded to the file of the CIT(A). [ S. 68, 115BBE, 250, Art .226 ]
Sohan Raj Khanted Guvanthraj v. CIT (Appeals), NFAC, New Delhi (2024) 297 Taxman 143/337 CTR 978 /467 ITR 547 /236 DTR 281 (Mad.)(HC)S. 271G : Penalty-Documents-International transaction-Transfer pricing-TPO had not proposed any adjustment-Levy of penalty is not justified. [S.92C, 92D]
ACIT v. Eurostar Diamonds India (P.) Ltd. (2024) 205 ITD 324 (Mum) (Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Winnings from lotteries or crossword puzzles-Online gaming-Winning amount paid to players of games available on its website-Revision is justified for for limited purpose of examining issue of deduction of TDS under section 194B.[S. 194B]
Play Games 24×7 (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2024) 205 ITD 571/228 TTJ 358 (Mum) (Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-Urban agricultural land-Capital asset-Liable to be assessed as capital gains-Revision is affirmed. [S. 2(14), 45]
Dharam Pal Saini. v. PCIT (2024) 205 ITD 617 (Delhi) (Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue–Exemption-Investment in residential house-Time limit-Date of transfer of shares-Capital gains-Investment in a residential house-Investment made in land beyond period of two years-Revision is not justified-Entitle to exemption.[S. 45, 54F]
Viral Rajendra Patel. v. PCIT (2024) 205 ITD 375 (Ahd) (Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Dealer in gold-Loss through MCX transactions for hedging its stock-in-trade-Loss is business loss-Not speculative-Revision is not valid.[S. 28(i)) 43(5)(d), 143(3)]
Ambicaa Sales Corporation. v. PCIT (2024) 205 ITD 412 (Bang) (Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Income from other sources-Share premium-Discounted Cash flow (DCF) method-Selected for scrutiny on the ground that large share premium received during relevant assessment year-Assessing Officer accepted the claim-Commissioner was not justified in setting aside order of AO under section 263 on ground that AO had merely accepted claim of share premium without making enquiry with respect to valuation of shares. [S. 36(1)(va), 56(2)(viib),142(1), R.11UA]
Vaaan Infra (P.) Ltd. v. pr. CIT (2024) 205 ITD 331 (Delhi) (Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Examined all details-Possible view-Revision is not valid.[S. 10(21)]
Synthetic & Art Silk Mills Research Association. v. CIT (2024) 205 ITD 70 (Mum)(Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Donation to political parties-No enquiry was made by the Assessing Officer-Revision is held to be justified.[S.80GGC]
Rakesh Balubhai Padariya v. PCIT (2024) 205 ITD 62 (Ahd) (Trib.)