S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Freebies or gifts-stockists and distributors-Enquirers were made in the assessment proceedings-Revision is not valid. [S. 37(1), 153A]
Leeford Health Care Ltd v. PCIT (2022) 99 ITR 19 (Chd)(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-Assessment order passed giving effect to order of Settlement Commission-Revision is not valid [S. 143(3), 245D(3), 245D(4)]
Siemens Ltd. v. CIT (2022)99 ITR 50 (SN)(Mum) (Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Business expenditure-Revision is held to be not valid [S. 68, 69C]
Sethi Finmart (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2022)99 ITR 59 (SN)(Kol) (Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Exemption allowed after considering written submissions and supported documents-Revision is held to be not valid [S. 54F]
Sangeeta Ganpati Jadhav (Smt.) v. CCIT (2022)99 ITR 62 (SN)(Pune)(Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limited Scrutiny-Assessing Officer examined all facts relating to issues selected for limited scrutiny-Failure to make enquiry into issue relating to invested in unlisted equities-Revision is not valid.[S. 56(2(viia), 143(3)]
Reinforce Recruiter Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2022)99 ITR 13 (SN)(Delhi) (Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limited scrutiny-PCIT cannot travel beyond the Limited scrutiny Investment-Investment reflected in balance sheet-Furnished basic details-Direction was modified to consider the investment made in the course of the set aside proceedings. [S. 143(3)]
Aryadeep Complex (P)Ltd. v. PCIT (2022) 219 TTJ 735 /218 DTR 25 (Raipur)(Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Lack of adequate opportunity-Basic enquiries are not conducted by the PCIT-Revision order was quashed.[S. 143(3)]
Fortune Metaliks Ltd. v. PCIT (2022) 217 TTJ 662 / 215 DTR 37 / 95 ITR 477 (Chd)(Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Reassessment was done on account of capital gains-Assessing Officer is not making any addition on capital gain-Addition was made on account of sale of shares-Revision order on other issues is not valid in law. [S. 45, 54, 143(3), 147, 148]
Binal Parixit Patel (Mrs) v. PCIT (2022) 217 TTJ 10 (UO) (Ahd)(Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Lack of proper enquiry-Delayed deposit of the employees’ contribution towards Provident fund-Revision is not valid [S. 36(1)(va),43B, 80P(2)(a)(i)]
Bhagashri Nagri Sahakart PT. Sanstha Maryadit v. PCIT (2022) 217 TTJ 40 (UO) (Nag.)(Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Proposal sent by the Assessing Officer-AO cannot use the power of the CTT and recommend a revision-CIT having passed the order on the basis of the proposal sent by the AO, it is a case of jurisdiction deficit-Order was quashed on legal issue. [S. 143(3), 147, 154]
Alfa Lavel Lund AB v. CIT (IT)(2022) 215 TTJ 814 (Pune)(Trib)