Year: 2020

Archive for 2020


Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2019) 419 ITR 391 / 311 CTR 313/ 183 DTR 33/( 2020) 268 Taxman 150 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Order passed by the AO under direction of dispute Resolution Panel can be set aside-Alternative remedy–Writ to quash the notice u/s 263 is held to be not maintainable. [S. 144C, Art.226]

Mansukhlal v. PCIT (2019) 181 DTR 241 / 310 CTR 467 (MP)(HC)

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Review–Mistake apparent from the record – Reappreciation of evidence and rehearing of case without there being any error apparent on the face of the record is not permissible. [S.22(3)(f), 220(2), 220(2A)

J. Dinakaran v. Registrar ITAT (2019) 267 Taxman 492 / 110 taxmann.com 523 (Mad.)(HC) Editorial: Tribunal set aside the order of the AO and remanded to the AO, accordingly the SLP is withe J. Dinakaran v. Registrar ITAT (2019) 267 Taxman 491 (SC)

S. 254(2A) : Appellate Tribunal–Stay-Order of Tribunal to pay entire outstanding demand instalments were modified as the Tribunal did not record any finding that assessee had not made out a prima facie case and hardship. [S. 254(1), Art. 226]

Ambica Realties Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. Registrar (2019)419 ITR 382 (Guj.) (HC)

S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record–Tribunal considering matter and passing order—No Obvious error–Protective assessment-Order cannot be rectified– Writ petition was allowed. [S. 158BC, Art.226]

Tata Teleservices Ltd. v. ITO (2019) 183 DTR 217 / 311 CTR 380 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Duties–Alternative grounds-Direction issued by ITAT could not be construed to be restrictive in nature thereby preventing AO to consider all grounds and more particularly, when ITAT had not rendered any finding on applicability of S.. 194C—Order passed by ITAT should be and shall be read as an open remand to AO to consider all issues that were pleaded by assessee before ITAT. [S. 194C]

CIT v. India Cements Ltd. (2019) 181 DTR 105/ (2020) 312 CTR 168 / 424 ITR 410/ 274 Taxman 123(Mad.)(HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Jurisdictional issue– Reassessment–CIT(A) has not decided–Deemed to have been decided against-Rule 27 of the Income Tax Tribunal Rules would entitle a respondent who has neither preferred an appeal nor cross objections to relief on a point decided in favour of the appellant by the lower appellate authority-Order of Tribunal, quashing of reassessment and also on merit is affirmed. [S.80IA, 147, 148, R. 27]

S.D. Traders v. CIT (2019) 267 Taxman 631/ (20200 187 DTR 199/ 313 CTR 445 (All.)(HC)

S. 251 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals) – Power of enhancement-Powers cannot be restricted only to issues raised in appeal before him-Enhancement is held to be valid.

Ajji Basha v. CIT (2019) 267 Taxman 545 /(2020) 193 DTR 438(Mad.)(HC)

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)–Duties–Must pass a speaking order on merits by expressing reasons and finding in support of the conclusion–Matter remanded to the CIT(A) for passing speaking order. [Art. 226]

Colonel Ashwani Kumar Ram Singh (Retd.) v. PCIT (2019) 419 ITR 269 /(2020) 187 DTR 410/ 313 CTR 800 / 269 Taxman 522 (MP)(HC) Colonel Madan Gopal Singh Nagi (Retd) v. CIT (2019) 419 ITR 143 /(2020) 187 DTR 405/ 313 CTR 795/ 269 Taxman 522 (MP)(HC) . www.itatonline.org

S. 244 : Refund-Interest on refund-Disabled retired Army Personnel -Tax deducted at source on disability pension-Delay in claim for refund not attributable to assesse-CBDT circular is not applicable- Department is liable to refund tax recovered at source with Interest.- Suo motou contempt proceedings threatened against CIT & PCIT, if refund is not granted with in 30 days [S.119(2)(b), 237, Art.226]

Maple Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. (2019) 184 DTR 408 / (2020) 312 CTR 141 / 420 ITR 258/ 268 Taxman 138 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 241A : Withholding of refund in certain cases-Tax deduction at source – Merely because a notice was issued u/s 143(2), it was not a sufficient ground to withhold refund-Withhold refund and the order denying refund on this ground alone would be laconic. [S.143(ID), 143(2), 197, Art.226]