S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limited Scrutiny-Assessing Officer examined all facts relating to issues selected for limited scrutiny-Failure to make enquiry into issue relating to invested in unlisted equities-Revision is not valid.[S. 56(2(viia), 143(3)]
Reinforce Recruiter Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2022)99 ITR 13 (SN)(Delhi) (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-Limited scrutiny-PCIT cannot travel beyond the Limited scrutiny Investment-Investment reflected in balance sheet-Furnished basic details-Direction was modified to consider the investment made in the course of the set aside proceedings. [S. 143(3)]
Aryadeep Complex (P)Ltd. v. PCIT (2022) 219 TTJ 735 /218 DTR 25 (Raipur)(Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Lack of adequate opportunity-Basic enquiries are not conducted by the PCIT-Revision order was quashed.[S. 143(3)]
Fortune Metaliks Ltd. v. PCIT (2022) 217 TTJ 662 / 215 DTR 37 / 95 ITR 477 (Chd)(Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Reassessment was done on account of capital gains-Assessing Officer is not making any addition on capital gain-Addition was made on account of sale of shares-Revision order on other issues is not valid in law. [S. 45, 54, 143(3), 147, 148]
Binal Parixit Patel (Mrs) v. PCIT (2022) 217 TTJ 10 (UO) (Ahd)(Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Lack of proper enquiry-Delayed deposit of the employees’ contribution towards Provident fund-Revision is not valid [S. 36(1)(va),43B, 80P(2)(a)(i)]
Bhagashri Nagri Sahakart PT. Sanstha Maryadit v. PCIT (2022) 217 TTJ 40 (UO) (Nag.)(Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Proposal sent by the Assessing Officer-AO cannot use the power of the CTT and recommend a revision-CIT having passed the order on the basis of the proposal sent by the AO, it is a case of jurisdiction deficit-Order was quashed on legal issue. [S. 143(3), 147, 154]
Alfa Lavel Lund AB v. CIT (IT)(2022) 215 TTJ 814 (Pune)(Trib)S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Proper enquiry was made in the course of original assessment proceedings-Revision order was quashed.[S.68, 69A, 142(1)]
Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (KIIT) v. CIT (E) (2022) 217 TTJ 690 / 214 DTR 1 (Cuttack)(Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Long term finance-Interest on income tax refund-Re-possessed vehicles treating as bad debt-Non disallowance of unpaid leave encashment-Pendency of appeal before CIT(A)-No merger-Revision is justified-Partly quashed. [S. 36(1)(viia), 36(1)(viii), 250]
ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Dy. CIT(2022) 217 TTJ 296 (Mum)(Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Share capital-Cash credits-Evidences in the form of confirmation letters were produced in the original assessment proceedings-Additional evidence by Revenue-Charge sheet in criminal proceedings-Not relevant to issue-Additional evidence is not admitted-Revision order was quashed. [S. 2(24), 28(iv), 56(2)(vii)(b), 68, 254(1), ITAT R. 29, CrPC, S. 161, 164]
Jagati Publications Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 215 TTJ 818 / 210 DTR 137 (Hyd)(Trib) Editorial : Special Bench constituted was quashed Jagati Publications Ltd. v. President ITAT (2015) 377 ITR 31 / 279 CTR 271 / 124 DTR 131 (Bom)(HC). SLP of Revenue is pending and No stay of proceedings. (Diary No. 42483 / 2015 filed on 18th December, 2015. Case No SLP (c) No. 005296 /2016 Registered on 19th Feb, 2016, SLP (C) No. 001974 /2016, Registered on 29th Jan. 2016.S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Repayment of loan-Cash deposited in the bank-Examined by the Assessing Officer-Revision order was quashed. [S. 269T]
Sauria Agarwal v. PCIT (2022) 215 TTJ 523 / 211 DTR 63 (Cuttack)(Trib)