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. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Not specifying the charge-Penalty is deleted. [S.270A, 274]

Sree Navaladiyan Finance v.Dy.CIT (2024) 231 TTJ 192 (Chennai)(Trib)

S. 271(1)(b) : Penalty-Failure to comply with notices-Non appearance was not with any malafide intention-Penalty is deleted. [S. 142(1), 271B]

Kaushik Pra Vinchandra Gohel v. AO (2004) 231 TTJ 1 (UO) (Ahd)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Assessing Officer has applied his mind-The Principal CIT to hold bare minimum inquiry before passing the order which in the instant case has not happened. Revision order is quashed. [S. 143(3),144, 144B, 147, 263(1)(b)]

Exotic Realtors & Developers v. PCIT (2024) 231 TTJ 132 / 241 DTR 33 /38 NYPTTJ 993 (Chd) (Trib)

S. 251 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Powers-Natural justice-Not dealing on merits-Matter remanded to the CIT(A) to decide on merits. [S. 250,251(1)(a)]

Raj Kumar Dua v. ITO (2024) 231 TTJ 22 (UO) (Amristsar) (Trib)

S. 251 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Powers-co-terminus powers with that of the AO-Revaluation of asset-Assessing the income under different head-Cash credits-Capital gains-Powers exercised by the CIT(A) cannot be said to be beyond the scope of provisions of s. 251(1)-What was considered by the CIT(A) is the very same income which arose out of the revaluation of the asset held by the firm. [S. 45(4), 68]

Shree Estates v. ITO (2024) 231 TTJ 628 / 208 ITD 287 / 38 NYPTTJ 1032 (Hyd) (Trib)

S. 251 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Powers-Revision-Revision order is set aside by the Tribunal-Issue subject matter of consideration or examination by a higher authority in the rank of hierarchy, the lower authority in the rank or the authority exercising equal powers cannot sit in judgment over the order passed by the higher authorities-The powers exercised by the CIT(A) under s. 251(1) to enhance the assessment towards consideration paid for purchase of property in the hands of the assessee is beyond the scope of the powers of the CIT(A)-Investment in purchase of property-Capital contribution by partners-Addition is deleted. [S.69, 153A, 251(1), 263]

GRR Holdings v. Dy.CIT (2024) 231 TTJ 249 / 38 NYPTTJ 991 (Hyd) (Trib)

S. 246A : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Appealable orders-Appeal-Non-disposal of rectification application within period of six months-Quantum od refund-AO is directed to entertain the said application under s. 154 and dispose it of as per law after verification of records. [S. 154(8),244A]

S.K. Sharma Contractor v. ITO (2024) 231 TTJ 354/ 239 DTR 161 / 38 NYPTTJ 689 (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Mistake apparent from the record-Order passed by the CPC without issuing any prior notice/intimation-Disallowance of PF /ESI-Jurisdictional High Court in favour of assessee-Adjustment is bad in law. [S.36(1)(va)]

Avia Xpert (P) Ltd. v ITO (2024) 231 TTJ 310 / 241 DTR 161 / 38 NYPTTJ 1031 (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 153C : Assessment-Income of any other person-Search-Recording of satisfaction-The documents were transmitted to the AO of the assessee, based on which he had rightly initiated the proceeding under S. 153C-The law is amendment of S. 153C w.e.f. 1st Oct., 2014-Incriminating material is found-Assessment is valid-Payment made to tenant is not in respect of said plot-Full consideration is assessable as income. [S. 132]

Satya Sankalp Villa (Ellisbridge) (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2024) 231 TTJ 678 / 38 NYPTTJ 833 (Ahd)(Trib)

S. 148: Reassessment-Notice-Non-resident-Non jurisdictional AO-Revenue could not demonstrate that when the notice was issued on 30th March, 2022, ITO, Ajmer, had valid jurisdiction over the assessee-Reassessment is quashed.[S. 147]

Sunil Chablani v. CIT (IT) (2024) 231 TTJ 361 / 38 NYPTTJ 1009 (Jodhpur)(Trib)