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-Duty entitlement Passbook (DEPB)-Book profit-Provision made for doubtful debt and corporate Debt restructuring-Failure to deduct tax at source-Short deduction of TDS-Revision was quashed-Other issues Revision was held to be valid. [S.37, 40(a)(ia)), 115JB, 145]
Wockhardt Ltd v. PCIT (2022) 220 TTJ 657 / 220 DTR 1 (Pune)(Trib)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Interest-loan processing fees are not in respect of money borrowed or debt incurred, such loan processing fees cannot qualify as “interest” as defined u/s 2(28A) of the Act-Revision is not valid [S. 2(28A)) 40(a)(ia)]
Badrunisha (Smt.) v. ACIT (2022) 220 TTJ 983 / 220 DTR 338 (Jodhpur)(Trib.)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limited scrutiny-Revision order is bad in law. [S. 14A]
MBL A Capital Ltd. v. PCIT (2022)97 ITR 700 (Kol) (Trib)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Unaccounted money-Assessee receiving money and repaying it subsequently-Inadequate inquiry-Revision order is held to be not valid-Limitation period from original date of assessment and not from the date of reassessment-Revision time barred.[S. 143(3), 147]
Karan Polymers Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2022)97 ITR 56 (Kol) (Trib)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Valuation of stock-Method of accounting-Difference glaring in current assets and current liabilities as shown in balance sheet and in cash flow statement-Revision order was justified.[S.143(3), 145]
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-Dispute Resolution Panel-Order passed by the Assessing Officer passed order in accordance with directions issued by DRP, same cannot be revised by Commissioner. [S. 144C(13)]
Barclays Bank PLC v. CIT (IT) (2022) 215 TTJ 965 /212 DTR 33 / 139 taxmann.com 503 (Mum)(Trib)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Sale of Shares-Capital Gains-Deduction towards indemnity claim and Ex gratia claim of employees not allowable-Jurisdiction rightly invoked-Assessing Officer to examine matter afresh uninfluenced by observations of Principal Commissioner.[S. 37(1), 143(3)]
Dr. R. Sridhar v. PCIT (2022) 97 ITR 71 (SN) (Bang)(Trib)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-A.O. satisfied with sale consideration after perusal of all documents-Circle rate less than sale consideration in all flats except one-Additions made to the extent of one flat-Not a case where enquiry not made-revision not justified. [S. 43CA]
Harish H. Gandhi v. ACIT (2022)97 ITR 24 (SN) (Mum) (Trib)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Deduction for interest on deposits kept with banks allowed-Revision justified. [S.80P].
Gujarat Fisheries Central Co-Operative Association Ltd. v. PCIT (2022)97 ITR 9 (SN)(Ahd) (Trib)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Rate of depreciation-Windmills installation-Change of law-Windmill installed on or before 31-02-2023-Eligible for 80% of depreciation-Revision is not valid. [S. 32]
GFL LTD. v. PCIT (2022)97 ITR 11 (SN) (Ahd) (Trib)