S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Obvious omissions-Late payment of employees Provident Fund-Revision is justified. [S 43B]
Himanshu Engineering Works v. PCIT (2022)96 ITR 35 (SN)(Ahd) (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. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Short-Term capital gains-Sale of land, building and furniture-When capital gains calculated separately in manner directed by Principal Commissioner, result would be short-term capital Loss-Revision is not valid. [S. 143(3).
SPML Infra Ltd. v. PCIT (2022) 96 ITR 291 (Kol)(Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Assessing Officer framing assessment after considering all details-Revision order not mentioning how Assessing Officer’s order erroneous and prejudicial to interests of Revenue-Revision is not valid [S. 143(3)]
Satyam Educational Health and Charitable Trust v.PCIT (2022)96 ITR 36 (Pat) (Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Issues enquired by Assessing Officer-Principal Commissioner without conducting independent inquiry directing the Assessing Officer to carry out detailed inquiries-Revision order was quashed. [S. 143(3)]
Royal Lifestyle Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2022) 96 ITR 339 (Chd) (Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Assessing Officer framing assessment after considering all details-Claim under section 57 was allowed in previous and latter years-Commissioner ought to have conducted independent enquiries on not being satisfied-Revision is not valid [S. 57]
Sanjay Jain v. PCIT (2022)96 ITR 1 /(2023) 226 TTJ 1018 (Chd)(Trib) Sanjay Jain & Sons v. PCIT (2022)96 ITR 1/(2023) 226 TTJ 1018 (Chd)(Trib) Rajni Jain v.PCIT (2022)96 ITR 1//(2023) 226 TTJ 1018 (Chd)(Trib)/ Tarun Jain v.PCIT (2022)96 ITR 1 / (2023) 226 TTJ 1018 (Chd)(Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Assessing Officer Framing Assessment After Considering All Details And Information Submitted By Assessee-Assessee’s claim of increase in valuation of stock properly explained-Commissioner ought to have conducted enquiries himself on not being satisfied-Revision is not valid. [S. 143(3)]
Ganga Acrowools Limited v. PCIT (2022) 96 ITR 171/ 219 TTJ 463/ 217 DTR 396 (Chd)(Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limited Scrutiny-Labour and wages payable-Assumption of jurisdiction well within limited scrutiny-Revision is justified. [S. 143(3)]
Ashwani Marwah v. PCIT (2022)96 ITR 53 / 217 TTJ 359 (Trib) (Chd) (Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Duty entitlement Passbook (DEPB)-Book profit-Provision made for doubtful debt and corporate Debt restructuring-Failure to deduct tax at source-Short deduction of TDS-Revision was quashed-Other issues Revision was held to be valid. [S.37, 40(a)(ia)), 115JB, 145]
Wockhardt Ltd v. PCIT (2022) 220 TTJ 657 / 220 DTR 1 (Pune)(Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Interest-loan processing fees are not in respect of money borrowed or debt incurred, such loan processing fees cannot qualify as “interest” as defined u/s 2(28A) of the Act-Revision is not valid [S. 2(28A)) 40(a)(ia)]
Badrunisha (Smt.) v. ACIT (2022) 220 TTJ 983 / 220 DTR 338 (Jodhpur)(Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limited scrutiny-Revision order is bad in law. [S. 14A]
MBL A Capital Ltd. v. PCIT (2022)97 ITR 700 (Kol) (Trib)