Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


PCIT v. Nawany Construction Co. (P.) Ltd. (2018) 258 Taxman 365 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 260A : Appeal – High Court –Monetary limits- CBDT Circulars continue to bind revenue and if they contain any conditions, whether such conditions are attracted or not would have to be proved and established by revenue; mere raising objection in terms of Circular would not be enough. [S.119]

L & T Finance Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 258 Taxman 282 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 260A : Appeal – High Court – Question of matching concept which was never argued before the Tribunal nor raised before the High Court, cannot be argued first time before the High Court. [S.28(i)]

Nitin Babubhai Rohit v. Ashok Bhavanbhai Patel (2018) 258 Taxman 252/ 172 DTR 388/ 305 CTR 979 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 251 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) –Powers- Doctrine of merger- Powers –After filing an appeal the assessee filed revision application- Despite the revisional order being passed the Commissioner (Appeals) decided the same issue- Once revision petition was filed and decided, it was not open to Commissioner (Appeals) to decide appeal on same issue. [S. 264 ]

CIT v. Income-tax Settlement Commission (2018) 258 Taxman 36 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 245D : Settlement Commission –Revenue cannot compel the Settlement Commission to reopen the earlier years by passing rectification order- Petition is dismissed. [S. 154,245C]

Dr. Thirupathy Reddy (HUF) v. ACIT (2018) 258 Taxman 177/(2019) 410 ITR 186 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 237 : Refunds –Annulment of assessment -Only tax paid by assessee in excess of what was declared by it on its own in return of income would be entitled to be refunded [ S.4(1), 140A(3), 158BD, 240(b), 244]

Travancore Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (2018) 258 Taxman 273 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 234B : Interest – Advance tax – Sale proceeds were deposited in a ‘No Lien’ account with bank as per direction of BIFR – Assessee could not remit tax within time as amount received from sale proceeds were lying with bank –Rejection application for waiver of interest I held to be not justified- Directed the Commissioner to pass the order on merits. [ S.220(2)]

Aruvikkara Farmers Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 258 Taxman 18 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 226 : Collection and recovery -Stay- Pendency of Appeal before – Commissioner (Appeals) –CIT(A) granted stay on condition of 50% of tax in dispute- Single judge reduced to 20% of tax in dispute –On appeal considering the assessee being a co-operative bank , stay is granted by paying 1 % 0f tax in dispute. [ S.68, 249]

Mundela Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 258 Taxman 233 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 226 : Collection and recovery – Modes of recovery –Co-operative societies -Cash credits- Direction to deposit 50% of tax in dispute is reduced to 20% and directed the CIT(A) to expedite the hearing. [S.68, 80P]

Sankalp Recreation (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India (2018) 258 Taxman 341 / (2019) 411 ITR 671 (Bom.)(HC) Editorial: Affirmed , Sankalp Recreation Pvt.Ltd v. UOI (2019) 418 ITR 673/ 267 Taxman 13 (SC)

S. 222 : Collection and recovery –Auction of property- Direction of CBDT to hold fresh auction after determining the a reserve price by taking in to account fresh valuation report of District valuer is held to be justified. [ S.269UD ]

MPhasis Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 258 Taxman 120 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery – Assessee deemed in default – When an appeal is pending there is no automatic stay – Commissioner (Appeals) is directed to dispose of appeal expeditiously- Matter remanded. [S. 154, 246]