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. 271D : Penalty-Takes or accepts any loan or deposit-Long term capital gains-Received cash on sale of immovable property in AY 2016-17-Deposited cash during demonetisation period-Levied penalty for contravention of S. 269SS-Deleted penalty as S. 269SS was violated in AY 2016-17 and not in AY. 2017-18.[S. 45, 269SS]
Ramachandran Bandhuvula v. ITO (2023) 103 ITR 81 (SN)(Hyd) (Trib)
S. 270A : Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income-Concealment of income subject to conditions-search and seizure-held, AO cannot make an assumption that the assessee would not disclose income if the due date to file return has not expired based on previous record. [S. 132]
S. Manoharan v .Dy. CIT (2023)103 ITR 243 (Chennai)(Trib)
S. 270A : Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income-Addition made is estimate made by DVO-The levy of penalty is not valid .[S.43CA]
vJaibalaji Business Corporation (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (Pune) 200 ITD 58 (Pune)(Trib)
S. 270A : Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income-Deemed provisions-Cannot fall in the category of underreporting of income. Also pertinent for the Assessing officer alleging underreporting/misreporting of Income is to specify the limb under which penalty proceedings have been initiated. [S.43CA, 562(2)(x)]
Alrameez Construction (P.) Ltd v. NFAC [2023] 202 ITD 379 (Mum) Trib.)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
AO, without examining the matter, simply accepted the explanation of the assessee, which was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue-the issue was complicated and needed detailed verification of Accounting Standards followed & law applicable-Principal Commissioner directed the AO to verify and pass the assessment order afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity to the assessee-Held, no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Principal Commissioner.[S.92CA, 143(3)]
AGS Health P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2023) 103 ITR 95 (SN)(Chennai) (Trib)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Citing the possibility of multiple valid views on the assessment-Revision order is set aside.[S. 2(22)(e)]
Moin Akhtar Qureshi v. PCIT (2023) 103 ITR 84 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-No discussion in the assessment order-Assessing Officer applied his mind during assessment proceedings-Revision order is quashed.[S. 143(3)]
Gopal Soundararaj (Mr.) v. PCIT (2023) 103 ITR 33 (SN) (Chennai) (Trib)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-survey-Regular books of account not maintained properly-revision of income of return revealed discrepancies-Entitle to set off the loss-Additional income-Direction is contrary to CBDT circular .[S.115BBE, 119,133A]
Lakshmi Farms v .PCIT (2023)103 ITR 265 (Chand)(Trib)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
Assessment filed by the retailer approved by the AO-Purchase of lose diamonds not practical according to AO-Finding of Principal Commissioner that enquiry or verification not done not justified. [S. 143(3)]
Kirti Diam v. PCIT (2023) 103 ITR 602 (Mum.) (Trib.)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
Limited scrutiny on Issue of high ratio of refund to credit of tax deducted at source-Books of accounts produced were examined on test check basis-AO even disallowed certain expenditure in assessment proceedings-Order could not be treated as erroneous. [S. 143(3)]
Ruhela Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2023) 104 ITR 426 / 225 TTJ 587 (Lucknow) (Trib)