Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


ITO (E) v. Chandigarh Lawn Tennis Association ( 2018) 193 TTJ 256// 163 DTR 113/ 66 ITR 14( SN) (Chd.)(Trib) , www.itatonline.org

S. 254(2A) : Appellate Tribunal – Interim stay-Contempt- Strictures passed against the Department for confronting, showing resentment and displeasure to the Tribunal for granting interim stay against recovery of demand. Petition of revenue was dismissed with costs of Rs. 20,000/- to be deposited in Prime Minister’s Relief fund within 15 days of receipt of the copy of this order. [ S. 11 ]

Gowthami Associates v. ITO (2018) 168 ITD 509 (Bang) (Trib.)

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record –Review of order on the basis of principle laid down by Superior courts was held to be not permissible .

PCIT v Nirma Ltd (2018) 252 Taxman 187 (Guj)(HC) Editorial : SLP of assessee is dismissed Nirma Ltd v. PCIT ( 2019) 265 Taxman 560 (SC)

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record – Interest on borrowed capital- Rectification order passed by Tribunal subsequently allowing the interest was quashed [ S. 36(1)(iii) ]

CIT ( E) v. JK Education Samiti. (2018) 400 ITR 174 (P&H) (HC)

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record –Remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer—No illegality or perversity-Rectification is not maintainable [ S.12AA ]

Procter & Gamble Home Products Pvt. Ltd. v. ITAT(2018) 404 ITR 101/ 170 DTR 205 / 305 CTR 605 ( Bom)(HC) , www.itatonline.org

S. 254(2):Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record –Order in the case of sister concern is binding on the Tribunal unless set-aside or stayed. A rectification application on the ground that the orders in the sister concern’s case are not correct is not permissible as it amounts to a review [ S. 254(1)]

Maharashtra Labour Welfare Board v. ITO (2018 ) 168 ITD 15 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 254(1): Appellate Tribunal- Additional ground – Agent of State- Not liable to be assessed – Additional ground was admitted and matter was seta side to the AO to decide accordance with law .[ S. 10(23AAA), 10(23C)(iv), Art . 289(1) ]

Shakuntla Thukral (Smt.) v. CIT (2018) 400 ITR 85 (P&H) (HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal- Powers—No satisfactory explanation was furnished hence delay of 613 days in filing the appeal was not condoned [ S. 253(1) , Limitation Act, 1963, S.5 ]

CIT v. Essa Ismail Sait (Late) (2018) 400 ITR 134 (Ker) (HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal – Duties- Failure to consider entire material on record by the Tribunal, order was set aside [S. 253 ]

ACIT v. Progressive Constructions Ltd ( 2018) 161 DTR 289 /63 ITR 516/191 TTJ 549( SB) ( Hyd) (Trib)

S. 254(1): Appellate Tribunal- Cross objection- Delay of 138 days- Delay due to oversight was held to be not sufficient cause -Delay was not condoned[ S. 253 ]

Vinod Agarwal v. CIT (2018) 61 ITR 598 (Kol) (Trib) Shyam Sundar Agarwal v. CIT (2018) 61 ITR 598 (Kol) (Trib) Ramnaresh Agarwal v. CIT (2018) 61 ITR 598 (Kol) (Trib) Pawan Kumar Agarwal v. CIT (2018) 61 ITR 598 (Kol) (Trib)

S. 254(1): Appellate Tribunal — Delay of 93 days in filing appeal was condoned [ S. 263 ]