Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


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]

Vodafone Idea Ltd. (2019) 267 Taxman 603 / 183 DTR 177 / 311 CTR 385/ (2020)421 ITR 253 (Bom.) (HC)

S. 241A : Withholding of refund in certain cases–Loss return AO cannot withhold refund merely because in immediately preceding assessment year the assessee has declared a positive income. [S.143(1), 143(ID)]

Tata Communications Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2019) 267 Taxman 423 /182 DTR 249/311 CTR 1 (Bom.)(HC) Tata Communications Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2019) 181 DTR 9/310 CTR 805/ (2020) 425 ITR 279 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 241A : Withholding of refund in certain cases–AO cannot withhold refund without processing the return as well as revised return u/s. 143(1)–Show cause notice to withhold the refund was quashed-Withholding the refund is without authority of law and liable to be set aside.[ S.143(1)]

Narayanan Chettiar Industries v. ITO (2019) 267 Taxman 426 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 237 : Refunds – Amounts of tax in dispute was collected when the appeal was pending-Appeal tax demand was reduced – Application for remand was not acted upon-High Court directed the AO to refund the amount with interests witin period of four weeks.[ S.254(1), Art.226

Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. CIT (2019) 267 Taxman 405 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 237 : Refunds–Tax deducted at source–Refund should not be withheld due to some reason of technical glitch, system fails, mismatch of TDS etc-Concerned AO must manually should calculate the refund and release the refund-The computer system and auto generation or any difficulty in doing so in a particular case, cannot override the correct legal position. [Art. 226]

Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. CIT (2019) 267 Taxman 408 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 237 : Refunds–Tax deduction at source-Refund cannot be with held on account of computer glitch at Central Processing Center-Department was to be directed to release refund with statutory interest after manually computing same.-Court also observed that “We expect the department to address this larger issue so that similar disputes do not have to travel to the High Court for resolution.” [Art. 226]