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)
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-Payment to director-AO enquired remuneration paid to directors and taking well-informed decision after considering submissions made by the Assessee and restrict payment to one director. Revision by Pr. CIT on ground payment to another director should also have been restricted, not justified.[S. 40(2)(b)]
Shanti Multilink P. Ltd. v Pr. CIT (2023)105 ITR 49 (SN) (Ahd) (Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
-Requirement of reference to Transfer Pricing Officer-Return of income of assessee selected under “transfer pricing risk” parameter-Failure by AO to make reference or record satisfaction for not doing so-Instruction of Board not followed-Order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue-Revision justified —CBDT Instruction No. 3 Of 2016, Dated 10-3-2016 .[S. 92C, 144C, 119,263 Expl. 2(c)]
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Income from other sources-Receipt of consideration for shares in excess of fair market value-Share premium received from 100 per cent. holding company-Deeming provision cannot be applied-Order passed by AO accepting the returned income was not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue-Revision not sustainable .[S. 56(2)(viib), 68,]
BLP Vayu (Project-1) P. Ltd. v PCIT (2023) 201 ITD 283/ 104 ITR 72 (SN)(Delhi)(Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
Depreciation-Additional depreciation-Balance of additional depreciation w.r.t asset put to use in previous year can be claimed in the subsequent year-Revision order is quashed. [S. 32(1)(iia)]
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limited scrutiny-Co-operative societies-Deduction allowed by AO in limited scrutiny assessment to examine “Deduction under Chapter VI-A”.-Possible view-Revision is not valid. [S. 80P(2)(d)]
Keshoraipatan Sahkari Sugar Mills Ltd., Kota v. PCIT (2023) 153 taxmann.com 290 / 104 ITR 566/ 223 TTJ 922 (Jaipur) (Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Cost of acquisition of asset-The amount paid to intermediary allottee from builder would form part of cost of acquisition-Revision is held to be not valid.[S. 45 ,48]
Vishal Aggarwal v. PCIT [(2023) 200 ITD 603 (Delhi) (Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Stock in trade-Builder-Business income-Income from house property-Revision is held to be not valid .[S.22, 28(i)]
Othello Developers v. PCIT, [2023] 201 ITD 370/ 226 TTJ 103 (Ahd)(Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Rental income-The Assessing officer has taken one plausible view based on exhaustive inquiries and detailed submissions unless the view adopted is not at all sustainable in law-Revision is held to be not valid .[S. 22, 28(i)]
Agrani Buildestate v. PCIT [2023] 202 ITD 231 (Jaipur)(Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
High Court held that the assessee to be a society providing public utility services within the meaning of section 2(15) which was eventually affirmed by the Supreme Court-PCIT was wrong to hold Assessment Order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.-Revision order was quashed.[S. 2(15), 11, 12 13(8), 143(3)]