S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Carry forward of long term capital loss-Exempt income-Revision order was quashed. [S. 10(38), 74 (1)(b), 74(1)(c)]
Pankaj Kishorchandra Desai v. PCIT(2022) 95 ITR 76 (SN)(Surat)(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-Buyback transactions-Deemed dividend-Reduction of share capital-Non application of mind-DTAA-India-Singapore-Revision order is up held. [S. 2(22) (d), 45, 92CA(3), 115O, 144C, 160, 163]
Madura Coats P. Ltd v. PCIT (2022) 95 ITR 70(SN) (Chennai)(Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Agricultural land-Assessing Officer accepting valuation report furnished by assessee-Failure to follow mandatory provisions of law-Revision is justified. [S. 50C, 56(2)(vii) (b)]
Minakshi Shivkumar Bansal (Mrs.) v. PCIT (2022)95 ITR 11 (SN) (Pune) (Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Mismatch of disclosure of receipts-Income-Tax Return and Form 26AS-Assessee duly filing reply with necessary evidence-Assessing Officer sending proposal to Principal Commissioner on same issue-Amounts to miscarriage of justice-Revision order was quashed. [S. 154, Form, 26AS.]
Gurfateh Films and Sippy Grewal Productions (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2022)95 ITR 456 (Amritsar)(Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Obvious omissions-Late payment of employees Provident Fund-Revision is justified. [S 43B]
Himanshu Engineering Works v. PCIT (2022)96 ITR 35 (SN)(Ahd) (Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Short-Term capital gains-Sale of land, building and furniture-When capital gains calculated separately in manner directed by Principal Commissioner, result would be short-term capital Loss-Revision is not valid. [S. 143(3).
SPML Infra Ltd. v. PCIT (2022) 96 ITR 291 (Kol)(Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Assessing Officer framing assessment after considering all details-Revision order not mentioning how Assessing Officer’s order erroneous and prejudicial to interests of Revenue-Revision is not valid [S. 143(3)]
Satyam Educational Health and Charitable Trust v.PCIT (2022)96 ITR 36 (Pat) (Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Issues enquired by Assessing Officer-Principal Commissioner without conducting independent inquiry directing the Assessing Officer to carry out detailed inquiries-Revision order was quashed. [S. 143(3)]
Royal Lifestyle Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2022) 96 ITR 339 (Chd) (Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Assessing Officer framing assessment after considering all details-Claim under section 57 was allowed in previous and latter years-Commissioner ought to have conducted independent enquiries on not being satisfied-Revision is not valid [S. 57]
Sanjay Jain v. PCIT (2022)96 ITR 1 /(2023) 226 TTJ 1018 (Chd)(Trib) Sanjay Jain & Sons v. PCIT (2022)96 ITR 1/(2023) 226 TTJ 1018 (Chd)(Trib) Rajni Jain v.PCIT (2022)96 ITR 1//(2023) 226 TTJ 1018 (Chd)(Trib)/ Tarun Jain v.PCIT (2022)96 ITR 1 / (2023) 226 TTJ 1018 (Chd)(Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Assessing Officer Framing Assessment After Considering All Details And Information Submitted By Assessee-Assessee’s claim of increase in valuation of stock properly explained-Commissioner ought to have conducted enquiries himself on not being satisfied-Revision is not valid. [S. 143(3)]
Ganga Acrowools Limited v. PCIT (2022) 96 ITR 171/ 219 TTJ 463/ 217 DTR 396 (Chd)(Trib)