Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


CIT v Tagros Chemicals (India) Ltd. (2018) 161 DTR 341 (Mad) (HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal –Remand – Qualified remand was held to be not proper it has to be open remand , direction of the Tribunal was modified .

Arun Sunny v. CCIT (2018) 161 DTR 391 / 303 CTR 110(Ker)(HC)

S. 234B : Interest – Advance tax -Capital gains- CBDT declined to waive the interest- Dismissing the petition the Court held that in law, equity would be subservient to; and, could not override; statute —Rejection of petition for waiver of interest is held to be justified [ S.119 ]

Sainik Food (P) Ltd. v. PCIT (2018) 406 ITR 596/ 164 DTR 265/ 302 CTR 49 (Pat) (HC)

S. 226 : Collection and recovery – Modes of recovery- The ITO (TDS) Bhagalpur cannot act arbitrarily and extend favour to the Mining Department and release their Bank account and decide to attach the Bank account of the petitioner and recover the tax liability from the Bank account of the petitioner in proceedings u/s 226(3)- Department was directed to refund the amount collected with in three months along with interest , failure to which the department was directed to pay the cost of Rs 1 lakhs which shall be paid from the pocket of the ITO. [ S.226(3) ]

Antony Sunny v. JCIT (2018) 164 DTR 290 (Ker) (HC)

S.226: Recovery – Stay was granted by directing to pay 5% of demand in dispute in two instalments as against 15% was directed to be paid earlier order

S. Arputharaj v. Dy. CIT (2018) 162 DTR 25 / 300 CTR 558 (Mad) (HC)

S.226:Recovery -Stay -Tax Recovery Officer could not grant stay of order of assessment and remedy lies only before AO or before First Appellate Authority AO had to consider case on merits and then take decision in matter and not mechanically go by guidelines issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes, as guidelines themselves provide for contingencies, which might vary from case to case. [ S.281B ]

Google India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (IT) (2018)252 Taxman 27 / 163 DTR 161 / 301 CTR 485 (Karn)(HC)

S. 226 : Collection and recovery – Modes of recovery -Tribunal has directed to pay 55% of outstanding demand- On writ High Court directed the Tribunal to dispose the appeal expeditiously – Interim order of stay was declined as the appeal was slated for final arguments before the Appellate Tribunal .

Vodafone M-Pesa Ltd. v PCIT (2018) 164 DTR 257/ 256 Taxman 240 (Bom)(HC)

S.220:Collection and recovery – Stay –Pendency of appeal before CIT(A) -Direction of the CIT to enhancing to pay 50% of demand when first appeal is pending is held to be bad in law – Application for stay was pending before CIT(A)-CIT(A ) was directed to dispose the stay application with in four weeks and stay will continue for further period of two weeks.

Harish Kumar Gupta v. CCIT (2018) 404 ITR 590/163 DTR 260 / 301 CTR 354 (Uttarakhand) (HC)

S.154: Rectification of mistake apparent on record -Levy of interest- Delay in filing of return-Waiver of interest – Petition was dismissed .[ S. 234A, 234B, 234C ]

CIT v. Blue Star Ltd. (2018) 162 DTR 302 / 301 CTR 38 (Bom) (HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment – Recorded reason was 31 st March 2010 where as notice u/s 148 was issued on 30 th March 2010 -Recording of reasons before issue of notice is mandatory hence Reassessment was held to be bad in law [ S.148 ]

PDS Logistics International (P) Ltd. v CCIT (2018) 164 DTR 222/ 256 Taxman 167 /304 CTR 996/ ( 2019) 414 ITR 527 (Karn) (HC)

S. 139 : Return of income -Delay due to crashing of computer system – Application which was filed for condonation of delay was rejected, after six years of filing of petition was held to be not justified -CIT was directed to condone the delay and hear the matter expeditiously with the observation that delay in disposing the application after six years of filing of the petition has to be viewed seriously while rendering substantial justice to parties . [ S.119(2)(b) ]