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-Heavy cash deposited in the bank-Revision order was affirmed-Direction was modified to consider only cash deposited in the bank [S. 143(3)]

Gajraj Mining (P) Ltd v.PCIT (2022) 220 TTJ 1 (UO)(Jabalpur)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-AO made an extensive, elaborate and necessary enquiry with a view to find out whether the assessee fulfils the conditions mentioned in s. 80-IB or not-Revision is not valid-Commissioner cannot revise the order merely on the proposal sent by the Assessing Officer. [S.80IB (11A]

KBB Nuts (P) Ltd. v. PCIT (2022) 220 TTJ 716 (Amritsar)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Corpus donation and loan-Received from entities controlled by the same authority as the assesse-Voluntary contribution made with specific direction may be excluded-Revision was up held with direction. [S. 11(1)(d)]

Saifee Byjhani Upliftment Trust v. CIT (E) (2022) 216 DTR 23 / 220 TTJ 585 (Mum)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Transaction of two properties-Capital gains-Remand proceedings the Assessing Officer informed that the transactions are reported-Revision order was quashed. [S. 45]

Rita Goyal v. PCIT (2022) 220 TTJ 17 (Jodhpur)(Trib)(UO)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Proper enquiry was conducted in the original assessment proceedings-Merely because the CIT does not feel satisfied with the conclusion cannot be the basis for revision-Order of revision was quashed [S. 54, 54F, 143(3)]

Shanti Lal Deora v. ACIT (2022) 220 TTJ 251 (Jodhpur)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Family settlement-Nominal consideration-Purchase and sale deed was filed in the course of assessment proceedings-Revision is held to be not valid [S. 45, 50C, 143(3)]

Shailendra Jhanjhari Legal Heir of Dilip Kumar Jhanjhari v. PCIT (2022) 218 TTJ 33 (UO) (Indore)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Reassessment-Difference between the cash flow statement and balance sheet-Failure on the part of the AO to examine the same-Revision order is justified. [S. 143(3), 147, 148]

L. A. Development v. CIT (2022) 215 DTR 153 /218 TTJ 386 / 142 taxmann.com 280 (Cuttack)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-Reassessment proceedings dropped-Revision is held to be not valid [S. 45, 143(3), 147, 148]

Kadeer Khan v. PCIT (2022) 215 DTR 369 / 218 TTJ 732 (Jabalpur)(Trib) Shabana Khan v.PCIT (2022) 215 DTR 369 / 218 TTJ 732 (Jabalpur)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Bad-debt-Provision for bad and doubtful debts-Order was passed after proper application of mind-Revision is held to be not valid [S. 36(1)(viia), R, 6ABA]

Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mayaadit v. PCIT (2022) 216 DTR 49 /218 TTJ 1005 (Jabalpur)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Amalgamation-Non-existing company-Not filed the details of effective date of transfer-Assessing Officer was not aware of merger-Revision is held to be valid-: Capital gains-Shifting of industrial undertaking from urban area. [S. 54G]

IRIS Engineering Industries (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 216 DTR 255 / 218 TTJ 575 (Chennai)(Trib)