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. 271BA : Penalty-Failure to furnish reports-International transaction-Transfer pricing-Bona fide belief-levy of penalty deleted. [S. 92CA, 92E]

Faith Intertrade v. ITO (2022) 194 ITD 474 /(2023) 222 TTJ 659/ 224 DTR 259(Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Disallowance of claim-mistakenly not added foreign exchange fluctuation amount to his income-Levy of penalty is not valid.

Vimalachal Print & Pack (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2022) 194 ITD 671 (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Not specifying the charge-Bogus purchases-Levy of penalty is not valid. [S. 153A, 274]

ACIL Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 194 ITD 708 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 268A : Appeal-Monetary limit-Tax effect of quantum addition under dispute by revenue was less than prescribed monetary limit as fixed by relevant CBDT Circular, revenue’s appeal was to be dismissed.

Bharath Wind Farm Ltd. v. DCIT (2022) 194 ITD 636 (Chennai) (Trib.)

S. 268A : Appeal-Monetary limit-Penny stock-Shown as business income-Long term capital gains-Appeal of Revenue is as withdrawn on account of low tax effect. [S. 45]

ITO v. Palak Chinubhai Patel. (2022) 194 ITD 470 (Ahd) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Transferred part of converted capital asset into stock-in-trade-failure to make enquiry-Revision is valid. [S. 45, 48]

Kyori Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2022) 194 ITD 651 (Hyd.) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Higher rate of depreciation-Non-mentioning of specific reasons for accepting explanation of assessee by AO in assessment order-Revision is not valid. [S. 32]

Reliance Payment Solutions Ltd. v. PCIT (2022) 194 ITD 492 / 217 TTJ 153 / 212 DTR 297 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Hospitals-Philanthropic purposes-Interest income from investment-Incurred only 12 per cent of receipts for philanthropic purposes and accumulated 88 per cent of its receipts-Eligible for exemption-Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 10(23C)(iiiae)]

Swasthya Sewa Sansthan v. CIT(E) (2022) 194 ITD 444 (Kol.) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Bank deposit-Senior citizens-Cash deposited out of past savings-All explanations and documents from assessee had been scrutinized and examined by Assessing Officer, in such scenario order of assessment could not be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue. [S. 68]

Shergil Harjit v. PCIT (2022) 194 ITD 218 (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Specific domestic transaction-Order passed without referring domestic transaction to TPO-Section 92BA(i) was unconditionally omitted without a saving clause-Revision is not valid. [S. 92BA(i)]

Automark Industries (India) (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2022) 194 ITD 172 (Nagpur)(Trib.)