S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Proper enquiry conducted in the original assessment proceedings-Possible view-Revision order is quashed-Delay of 963 days is condoned. [ S. 143(3) , 253(5) ]
Kanoi Tea P. Ltd. v. PCIT (2023)106 ITR 648 (Kol) (Trib)
Digest of case laws
Online digest of latest case laws
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. 254(2A) : Appellate Tribunal-Stay-Long-term capital gains-Credit for taxes paid in Mauritius-Prima facie assessee entitled to stay-Directed to pay 20 percent of outstanding demand-Recovery proceedings stayed .
India Property (Mauritius) Company Ii, Mauritius v. Asst. CIT (IT) (2023)106 ITR 130 / [2024] 164 taxmann.com 440 (Delhi) (Trib)S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Additional evidence admitted and remanded for de novo consideration-Delay in filing appeal is condoned. [S. 253]
Channakeshava v. Asst. CIT (2023)106 ITR 47 (SN)(Bang) (Trib)S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Duties-Right of Respondent to support order of Commissioner (Appeals) on ground decided against Him. [ITAT R,1963, R. 27]
Dy. CIT v. Bilcare Ltd. (2023)106 ITR 411/ 224 TTJ 655 / 151 taxmann.com 456 (Pune) (Trib)S. 251: Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Powers-Enhancement notice-Uploaded on income tax business portal-Notice of hearing i also uploaded in the portal-The contention of the Department that no opportunity was given to the Assessing Officer to present evidence on the issue was factually incorrect .[ S. 250 ]
Dy. CIT v. T. S. Kumarasamy (2023)106 ITR 18 (SN) (Chennai) (Trib)S. 251 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Powers-Enhancement notice-Uploaded on income tax business portal-Notice of hearing i also uploaded in the portal-The contention of the Department that no opportunity was given to the Assessing Officer to present evidence on the issue was factually incorrect.[S. 250]
Dy. CIT v. T. S. Kumarasamy (2023)106 ITR 18 (SN) (Chennai) (Trib)S. 250: Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Procedure-Mistakenly mentioning wrong section under which order appealed against passed-Dismissal of appeal on technical ground not justified-Assessee to be permitted to rectify mistake. [S. 143(1), 143(3), 254(1)]
KEM Light Laboratories P. Ltd. v. ITO (2023)106 ITR 588 (SMC) (Mum) (Trib)S. 195 : Deduction at source-Non-resident-Other sums-Fees For Included Services-Matter remanded to the Assessing Officer-DTAA-India-United States of America.[ S.195((2), Art. 12]
Airports Authority of India v. ITO (IT) (2023)106 ITR 111 (SN.)(Delhi) (Trib)S. 153C: Assessment-Income of any other person-Search-Notice not issued–Assessment is non est. [S. 153D]
Asst. CIT v . Jagat Overseas (2023)106 ITR 108 (SN)(Delhi) (Trib)S. 153A: Assessment-Search-Assessments concluded on date of search-Do not abate-No addition can be made without incriminating material found during search-Un secured loan-Remanded to Assessing Officer to re-examine claim in light of decision of Supreme Court in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd((2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC )
Ritesh Rai v. Dy. CIT (2023)106 ITR 1 (SN.)(Chennai) (Trib)