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)]
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-
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)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Cash deposits during demonetisation period-Revision order is quashed.[S.68]
Kays Jewels P. Ltd. v. PCIT (2023)105 ITR 324 (Lucknow)(Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Surrendered income-No inquiry by Principal CIT to arrive at a contrary finding-Revision order is quashed.
Ved Parkash v. PCIT (2023)104 ITR 613/ 225 TTJ 40 (UO)(Chd)(Trib) Durga Dass Surender Kumar v. PCIT (2023)104 ITR 613/ 225 TTJ 40 (UO)0(Chd)(Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
The AO failed to make reference to transfer pricing officer for examining issue of specified domestic transactions-Also, allowed huge loss on commodity transactions without proper inquiries.[S. 43(5)]
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Share premium-The AO conducting specific enquiries relating to receipt of share premium-Determining fair market value basis the net asset method-Order not erroneous and prejudicial to revenue warranting revision.[S. 56(2)(viib)]
Star Health Investments P. Ltd. (Dissolved) v. PCIT (2023) 201 ITD 122/ 103 ITR 8 (SN)(Chennai)(Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Assessee submitted Form 3CM and Form 3CLA-Claim cannot be rejected in absence of intimation to Department in Form 3CL-No lack of inquiry by the AO-Dismissed the order passed by the PCIT.[S. 35(2AB]
Schaeffler India Ltd. v .PCIT (2023)200 ITD 747 / 103 ITR 19 (SN)(Ahd) (Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Difference in estimation yield in respect of Tomatoes-Set aside the assessment order-Reason to set-aside is erroneous-No prejudice caused to the interest of the revenue merely on difference in estimation.[S. 144]
Sai Organic Farms v. PCIT (2023) 103 ITR 41 (SN) (Chennai) Trib)