S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Relevant limb specifying charge not struck off-Penalty not leviable.
Shoreline Hotel Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2022) 94 ITR 18 (SN) (Mum.)(Trib.)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Relevant limb specifying charge not struck off-Penalty not leviable.
Shoreline Hotel Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2022) 94 ITR 18 (SN) (Mum.)(Trib.)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Valuation of closing stock-Less than cost price-Levy of penalty was quashed.
Sheth Ship Breaking Corporation v. JCIT (2022) 94 ITR 38 (SN) (Ahd.)(Trib.)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Bonafide mistake-Claim with respect to Long term capital loss.
Pawan Garg v. ACIT (2022) 94 ITR 159 / 217 TTJ 20 (SMC) (Chd.) (Trib.)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Non-striking off of relevant limb-lack of recording proper satisfaction by AO whether there was concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the Assessee-Non application of mind by AO-Levy of penalty is not valid. [S. 274]
Proform Interiors Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 94 ITR 63 (SN) (Delhi) (Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Interest on borrowed capital-Loans utilised for purchase of properties and assets-Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 36(1)(iii)]
Niagara Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2022) 94 ITR 24 (SN) (Mum.)(Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Lack of enquiry-Revision is valid-Deduction cannot exceed sum allowed in original assessment. [S. 143(3)]
Karnataka Forest Development Corporation Ltd. v. PCIT (2022) 94 ITR 31 (SN) (Bang.)(Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Agricultural income-Mere audit objection or merely because another view is possible does not allow jurisdiction under the section, to claim the order of the AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.
Surinder Pal Singh v. PCIT (2022) 94 ITR 458 (Chd.)(Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Expenditure incurred towards spectrum is not an expenditure for acquiring right to operate telecommunication services but is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation u/s. 32 of the Act-Revision is bad in law. [S. 32, 35ABB]
Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. PCIT (2022) 94 ITR 562 / 217 TTJ 323 (Mum.)(Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Cash credits-Share capital premium-Discharged the burden in original assessment proceedings-Revision is bad in law. [S. 68]
Starpoint Construction (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2022) 94 ITR 299 (Kol.) (Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Employees’ Stock option scheme expenses-Additional compensation-Revision is not valid-Book profit-Interest-Revision is valid. [S. 37 (1), 115JB(2)]
Ambuja Cements Ltd. v. CIT (LTU) (2022) 94 ITR 13 (SN) / 217 TTJ 498 / 215 DTR 215 (Mum.)(Trib.)