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-Order passed by the Assessing Officer cannot be revised on an issue which was not taken up in limited scrutiny. [S. 68, 115JB, 143(2)]

Antaiksh Realtors Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2021) BCAJ-December-P. 48 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limited scrutiny-Order passed by the Assessing Officer cannot be revised on an issue which was not taken up in limited scrutiny. [S. 143(2)]

Spotlight Vanijya Ltd. v. PCIT (2021) BCAJ-June-P. 27 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Allotment letter prior to AY. 2014-15-Registration was on 9th December, 2014-Provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) is not applicable-Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii)]

Naina Sarf v. PCIT (2021) BCAJ-November-P. 34 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Revision order passed on the basis of recommendation of Assessing Officer has no statutory sanction-Order is bad in law. [S. 143(3)]

Alfa Laval Lund AB v. CIT (2021) BCAJ-December-P. 47 (Pune) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Reference to dispute resolution panel-Order passed without complying the mandatory procedure prescribed u/s.144C is non-est-Order which is a nullity and non-est cannot be a revised. [S. 144C, Art. 14, 21]

Manorama Devi Jaiswal v. ITO (2021) BCAJ-December-P. 46 (Kol.) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Investment in new pant or machinery-Possible view-When an amendment is made to clarify or remove the hardship, the same is to be treated as clarificatory and it should be applied with retrospective effect-Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 32AC, 143(3)]

Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (2021) The Chamber’s Journal-November-P. 100 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Expenditure-Allowance-Loss of current year can be set off against income declared u/s 115BBD-Tax on certain dividends received from foreign companies-Debatable cannot be rectified. [S. 115BBD, 143(1)]

Rakesh Kumar Pandita v. ACIT (2021) BCAJ-December-P. 46 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Recorded reasons not provided-Reassessment is bad in law. [S. 148]

Rishabh Metals & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2021) The Chamber’s Journal-November-P. 101 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-AIR Information-Cash credits-Cash deposit in the bank-Assessing Officer failed to make reasonable enquiry-Reassessment was quashed. [S. 44AE, 68, 148]

Tapan Chakraborty v. ITO (2021) BCAJ-October-P. 53 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 145 : Method of accounting-Accrual of income-Real income theory-Interest income-Realisation becomes impossible-Income cannot be assessed on hypothetical basis. [S. 4, 5]

Nutan Warehousing Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2021) BCAJ-July-P. 46 (Pune)(Trib.)