S. 268A : Appeal-Instructions-Monetary limits-Applicable to revision order passed under section 263 of the Act-Appeal dismissed due to low tax effect. [S. 263, 260A]
PCIT v. Nalini Surrendrabhai Patel (2023) 458 ITR 540 / 295 Taxman 187 / 335 CTR 1088(Guj.)(HC)
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. 264 : Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Mistakenly filed details of the Assessement year 2014-15 instead of Assessment year 2013-14-Rejection of revision application is not justified-Matter remanded to the Commissioner for de novo con sideration. [S. 143(1), 154, Art. 226]
Diwaker Tripathi v. PCIT (2023) 295 Taxman 532/ (2024) 466 ITR 371(Bom.)(HC)S. 264 : Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Undisclosed income — Not maintaining the books of account-Contract works and other sources-Tax deduction at source-Form No 26AS showing the additional income-Payee confirming the payments-8% gross profit is estimated including the undisclosed income-Rejection of revision order is affirmed by High Court. [S. 133(6), 143(3), Form No. 26AS, Art. 226]
Amresh Kumar v. PCIT (2023)459 ITR 356 /154 taxmann.com 221 (Jharkhand)(HC) Editorial: SLP dismissed, Amresh Kumar v. PCIT (2023)459 ITR 364 / 295 Taxman 1 (SC)S. 264 : Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Undisclosed income — Not maintaining the books of account-Contract works and other sources-Tax deduction at source-Form No 26AS showing the additional income-Payee confirming the payments-8% gross profit is estimated including the undisclosed income-Rejection of revision order is affirmed by High Court-SLP is dismissed. [S. 133(6),143(3), Form No. 26AS, Art. 136]
Amresh Kumar v. PCIT (2023)459 ITR 364 / 295 Taxman 1 (SC) Editorial: Amresh Kumar v. PCIT (2023) 154 taxmann.com 221 (Jharkhand)(HC)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Matter in issue before Commissioner which was sought to be brought to rest by opting for benefit of Scheme was in context of same-Revision proceeding is quashed. [S. 143(3),147, Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, S. 4] C
Amitkumar Chandulal Rajani v. PCIT (2023) 295 Taxman 163/(2024) 460 ITR 241/336 CTR 353 (Guj.)(HC)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Revision order is set aside by the Tribunal-Order giving effect to Revision is void ab initio. [S. 143(3), 254(1), 260A]
PCIT v. Elecon EPC Projects Ltd. (2023) 295 Taxman 194 (Guj.)(HC)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Principle of natural justice-No opportunity was given-Contrary finding-Order quashed-Cost of Rs 10000, was imposed which shall be paid to High Court Legal Service Committee. [S. 143(3), Art. 226]
M.L. Chains v. PCIT (2023) 295 Taxman 418/(2024) 461 ITR 457 (All.)(HC)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Document Identification Number (DIN)-Intimation letter-Rectification of mistake-Failure to mention Document Identification Number in order is violation of mandatory requirement — Dismissal of Department’s application for rectification of order is justified. [S. 254(2) 260A]
PCIT (E) v. Tata Medical Centre Trust (2023) 459 ITR 155 / 295 Taxman 501/ 334 CTR 942 (Cal.)(HC)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Anonymous donations-Corpus fund- Tribunal order is quashed and set aside [S.2(24((iia), 11, 12, 13(7)]
Peoples Forum v. CIT (2023) 295 Taxman 433 /2024)465 ITR 795 (Orissa)(HC)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
-Industrial undertakings-Road infrastructure development-Order of Tribunal is affirmed. [S.80IA, 260A]