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-Dispute resolution panel-Draft assessment order-No notice of demand attached-Order cannot be revised-No loss to revenue. [S. 144C]

PCIT v. Apollo Tyres Ltd. (2021) 283 Taxman 388 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Merger-Subject matter of appeal-Investments written off-Book profit-Issue was not subject matter of appeal-Revision was quashed. [S. 115JB]

CIT, LTU v. Vijaya Bank (2021) 131 taxmann.com 136 (Karn.)(HC) Editorial : SLP is granted to the revenue, CIT, LTU v. Vijaya Bank (2021) 283 Taxman 295 (SC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limitation-Reassessment-Issue which was not subject matter of reassessment limitation has to be computed from the original assessment-Revision was held to be barred by limitation. [S. 143(3), 147, 263(2)]

CIT v. Indian Overseas Bank (2021) 207 DTR 202/(2022)441 ITR 689 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Sanction-Issue which was not raised before the Appellate Tribunal or CIT(A) cannot be raised first time before the High Court-Appeal of the revenue is dismissed. [S. 143(1), 147,147, 151]

PCIT v. Sursh Kumar Gupta (2021) 207 DTR 307 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Territorial jurisdiction of High Court-Transfer of case-Pendency of proceedings-Ahmadabad Tribunal decided the appeal-Appeal was filed at Allahabad High Court-Jurisdiction vest with Gujarat High court-Appeal was dismissed. [S. 120, 127(2)]

PCIT v. Dileep Kumar (2021) 323 CTR 998 / 208 DTR 110 (All.)(HC)

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Territorial jurisdiction of High Court-Transfer of case-Pendency of proceedings-Ahmadabad Tribunal decided the appeal-Appeal was filed at Allahabad High Court-Jurisdiction vest with Gujarat High court-Appeal was dismissed. [S. 120, 127(2)]

PCIT v. Dileep Kumar (2021) 323 CTR 998 / 208 DTR 110 (All.)(HC)

S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-lease rent-Tribunal followed order of earlier year and not followed the Judgement of Supreme Court-Miscellaneous application was dismissed-Order rejecting miscellaneous application was set aside-Non-consideration of judgement of Supreme Court is a mistake apparent on record-Matter remanded to Tribunal to decide on merits in accordance with law. [S. 37 (1), 200A]

Philips India Ltd. v. PCIT (2021) 323 CTR 992 / 208 DTR 211 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Recalling the order is beyond the scope and ambit of the powers of the Tribunal-Tribunal has no power to recall its earlier order-Order recalling the order was quashed and set aside- Where Tribunal decides merits erroneously remedy of aggrieved party is to appeal before High Court – DTAA-India-Sweden-USA. [S. 195(2), 254(1), 260A, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order XLVII Rule 1, Art. 12 (3), Art. 226]

CIT v. Reliance Communications Ltd. (2021) 323 CTR 873 / 208 DTR 113 / (2022) 440 ITR 1/ 284 Taxman 517 (SC) CIT v. Reliance Telecom Ltd. (2021) 323 CTR 873 / 208 DTR 113 / (2022) 440 ITR 1/ 284 Taxman 517 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. ITAT (Reliance Communications Ltd) ) (2017) 85 taxmann.com 42 (Bom)(HC) ) (2017) 85 taxmann.com 42 (Bom)(HC) (WP (L) No. 708 of 20017, WP No. 1406 & 1432 of 2017 dt. 8-8-2017 was set aside.

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Revision-Revision order set aside by the Tribunal on the basis of material produced before it which was not produced before the Commissioner was held to be not valid-Order of Tribunal seta side and matter remanded to the Commissioner to decide a fresh in accordance with law. [S. 12AA, 263]

CIT v. Love in Action Society (2021) 208 DTR 257 / 323 CTR 1011 / (2022) 422 ITR 358(Ker.)(HC)

S. 253 : Appellate Tribunal-Delay of 310 days-Inadvertence mistake on part of Chartered Accountant-Delay in filing appeal was condoned. [S. 260A, Limitation Act, 1963, S. 5]

Premalatha Pagaria v. ITO (2021) 283 Taxman 68 (Karn.)(HC)