S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Show cause notice-Not specifying the charge-Notice without striking off inapplicable words-Notice not valid-Penalty order was quashed. [S. 274]
Dy. CIT v. Thane District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. (2022)98 ITR 316 (Mum) (Trib) Tejpal Singh Bhatia v.ITO (2022) 98 ITR 71 (Lucknow)(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. 271(1)(b) : Penalty-Failure to comply with notices-Reassessment proceedings were held to be without jurisdiction-Penalty proceedings is also quashed. [S. 142(1), 147, 148]
Anita Awasthi (Smt) v. ITO (2022) 215 DTR 353 / 218 TTJ 512 / 43 taxmann.com 238 (Varansai)(Trib)S. 268A : Appeal-Instructions-Monetary limits for appeals by Department-How Compute-Tax effect of disputed amount of relief granted by Commissioner (Appeals) to be reckoned and not entire amount of relief granted. [S. 254(2)]
ACIT v. Nippon Leakless Talbros Pvt. Ltd. (2022)100 ITR 55 (SN) (Delhi) (Trib)S. 268A : Appeal-Instructions-Appellate Tribunal-Concealment penalty-Bogus purchases-Monetary limits-Penalty does not fall in exceptional cause of circular-Appeal of Revenue was dismissed due to low tax effect. [S. 253, 271(1)(c)]
ITO v. Maniar Electricals P. Ltd. (2022)100 ITR 569 (Mum)(Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Remuneration-Partnership deed-Allowable as per income tax Act-Maximum of Rs. 24 lakhs each per annum-Revision is not valid.[S. 40(b)(v)]
H.R. International v. PCIT (2022) 97 ITR 129 (Amritsar)(Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Gross profit estimated-Bogus purchases and sales-Revision order was quashed. [S. 143(3)]
Sree Shivalingeswara Arecanut Traders v. PCIT (2022) 209 DTR 32 / 215 TTJ 123 (Bang) (Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-PCIT order based on assumptions and irrelevant material-Order of PCIT revising AO order set aside.[S. 133(6)]
Sunita Gupta v. PCIT (2022) 220 TTJ 447 (Chd)(Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Enquiries were made during assessment proceedings-No discussion in the assessment order-Revision is not valid.[S. 45, 54,, 54EC, 54F]
Surjeet Singh v. PCIT (2022) 219 TTJ 982(Chd)(Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Bogus sales-Issue is not considered and decided by the CIT(A)-Revision is valid [S. 250]
Om Industries v. PCIT (2022) 217 DTR 230/ 99 ITR 422 (Jaipur)(Trib) JR Industries v. PCIT 2022) 217 DTR 230/ 99 ITR 422 (Jaipur)(Trib) Vikas Oil Products v. PCIT 2022) 217 DTR 230 / 99 ITR 422 (Jaipur)(Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Non consideration of reply to show cause notice-Twin Condition of error in the order and said order which can be said prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, have not been met-Revision order was quashed. [S. 143(3)]
Rajinder Chauhan v. PCIT (2022) 219 TTJ 1017 / 98 ITR 610 (Chd)(Trib)