S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Additional evidence obtained under RTI Act-Matter remanded.[S.80IB(10)
Vijay Tukaram Raundal. v. DCIT (2025) 214 ITD 661 (Pune) (Trib.)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Additional evidence obtained under RTI Act-Matter remanded.[S.80IB(10)
Vijay Tukaram Raundal. v. DCIT (2025) 214 ITD 661 (Pune) (Trib.)S. 270A:Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income-
Not specifying the charge, whether it was for under-reporting or misreporting of income-Penalty order was void ab initio and not sustainable in law-Penalty was deleted. [S. 45, 54F, 274]
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Donations-CSR activities-Allowed deduction under section 80G-Revision order was set aside. [S.80G, 143(3)]
Jashan Jewels (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2025) 214 ITD 112 (Mum) (Trib.)S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Depreciation-Road Project-Building, operating and transferring a section of national highway-Road construction project-Intangible asset-Eligible depreciation-Mercantile system of accounting-Negative grant-Depreciation on negative grant which was to be paid to NHAI-Depreciation allowable-Revision order set aside.[S. 32 143(3),145]
IRCON Soma Tollway (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2025) 214 ITD 139 (Delhi) (Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Agricultural income-Coffee curing-Specific queries during original assessment proceedings-Rule 7B deeming part of income as business income-Revision order was quashed. [S. 2(IA) 28(1),143(3), R.7B]
C. T. Ramanathan (HUF) v. ITO (2025) 214 ITD 96 (Chennai) (Trib.)S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
Cost of improvement-Limited scrutiny-Allowed claim towards cost of improvement under section 48 without conducting an inquiry or verification-Revision order affirmed. [S. 48, 54B]
S. 249: Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Form of appeal and limitation-Delay of 1386 days-Ex parte assessment-Non-receipt of notices as they were issued to the jail Superintendent while assessee’s father was in jail-Delay was condoned, and the matter was restored to the file of CIT(A) for decision on merits.[S. 144]
Rishabh Dev. v. ITO (2025) 214 ITD 766 (Dehradun) (Trib.)S. 199 : Deduction at source-Credit for tax deducted-TDS was not allowed by the Assessing Officer/CPC due to an error in writing the wrong alphabet in PAN-The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.[S. 154]
Bengal GHG Developers (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2025) 214 ITD 47 (Kol) (Trib.)S. 194A: Deduction at source-Interest other than interest on securities-Acquisition of loan-Purchased loans (including NCDs, ICDs and term loans)-No part of consideration paid by assessee could be termed as ‘interest’ paid by assessee to transferors-No obligation to deduct tax at source under section 194A. [S. 2(28, 133B(2), 201(1), 201(IA)]
DCIT (TDS) v. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. (2025) 214 ITD 406 (Mum) (Trib.)S. 151: Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice –Notice beyond a period of three years-Assessing Officer was statutorily obligated to have obtained approval from either of the authorities specified under section 151(ii) as per section 151 as amended by Finance Act, 2021, effective from 1-4-2021-Reassessment notice and consequential orders were quashed.[S.68, 148, 147,151 (ii)]
Nandigam Veerabrahmam. v. ITO (2025) 214 ITD 553 (Visakha) (Trib.)