263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Share capital and share premium-Lack of enquiry by the Assessing Officer on valuation of shares justifies revision, though the Commissioner cannot direct a straightaway addition. [S 56(2)(viib), 143(3)]
Max Hospitals and Allied Services v. PCIT (2025) 121 ITR 33 (SN) (Mum.)(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-Book profit-Amalgamation-Depreciation-Revision is invalid where it is based on incorrect facts and the Assessing Officer has already examined the depreciation claim arising from amalgamation.[S. 32, 115JB]
VITP P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2025) 170 taxmann.com 90 / 121 ITR 19 (SN) (Hyd.)(Trib.)S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Survey-Assessment completed after survey-One possible view taken by Assessing Officer-Explanation 2(a) to section 263 does not confer unfettered powers upon the Principal Commissioner to revise every assessment order merely because another view is possible.-Revision not valid.[S 69, 69A, 115BBE, 133A]
Alok Vijawat v. PCIT (2025) 121 ITR 481 / 178 taxmann.com 640 (Jaipur)(Trib.)S. 253: Appellate Tribunal-Appeals-Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024-Revenue’s appeal-Infructuous. [Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, S. 3]
ITO v. Rashmi Chopra Estate Developers (P.) Ltd. (2025) 121 ITR 67 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib.).S. 250: Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Procedure-Ex parte order-Reassessment-Addition under S. 69A-Faceless proceedings-Matter remanded to the file of CIT(A). [S 69A, 147, 148, 151, 250(6)]
Shyam Sunder Talwar v. ITO (2025) 121 ITR 67 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib.).S. 250: Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Procedure-Power to direct enquiry-Empowered to direct the Assessing Officer to make necessary enquiries and verify facts where the record so warrants-130 days delay in filing appeal-Incorrect affidavit given by the Assessing Officer-Delay was not condoned-Appeal was dismissed.[S. 153(5), 250(4)]
ITO v. Alert Consultants and Credit (P.) Ltd. (2025) 121 ITR 65 (SN) (Kol.)(Trib.)S. 250: Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Procedure-Speaking order-Reassessment-Charitable Trust-The matter was restored to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee..[S. 11, 12, 12A, 12AA 147, 148, 250(6)]
Pehal v. ITO (E) (2025) 121 ITR 62 (SN) (Agra)(Trib.).S. 250: Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Procedure-Additional evidence-Demonetisation-Cash deposits-Commissioner (Appeals) must examine additional evidence or call for a remand report before deciding the appeal. [S. 68, 139, 142(1), 144, Rule 46A]
Jamuna Shankar Sharma v. ITO (2025) 121 ITR 49 (SN) (Agra)(Trib.)S. 250: Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Procedure-Ex parte order-Technical glitches in uploading documents-Matter restored for fresh adjudication. [S. 251]
Maharashtra Gramin Bank v. CIT (2025) 121 ITR 12 (SN) (Pune)(Trib.)S. 250: Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Procedure-Penalty-Ex parte order-Commissioner (Appeals) bound to decide appeal on merits-Short and inadequate opportunity of hearing violates principles of natural justice-Matter restored.
[S. 250(6), 251, 271B]