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-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)]
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)]
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)]
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Difference of opinion-Sale-Cash deposited into bank-Not sustainable. [S. 143(3)]
Satvir Kaur (Smt.) v. PCIT (2023)105 ITR 387 (Amritsar) (Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Cash credits-Revision is quashed.[S. 143(3),153A]
Meet Pal Singh v. PCIT (2023) 105 ITR 584 (Chd)(Trib)