Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


The Chamber of Tax Consultants v. Director General of Income -Tax Systems & Ors ( Bom)( HC) www.itatonline .org

S.87A:Rebate of income -tax in case of certain individuals – New tax regime – Tax on income of individuals and Hindu undivided family – Rebate u/s 87A is substantive right which cannot be deprived by procedural changes such as changes in the utility software made by the department – The Court has directed the CBDT to extend the date of filing of return of income of AY. 2024-25 from 31 st December 2024 at least up to 15 th January 2025 by forthwith issuing a notification u/ s 119 of the Income -tax Act , 1961 so that the assesses can file a belated /revised return and claim rebate u/s 87 A in such return – The PIL is listed for hearing on 9 th January 2025 . [S.115BAC, 119,139(1), 139(4) , Art. 226 ]

IT Department v. Dhanashree Ravindra Pandit (2024) 340 CTR 411 / 241 DTR 65 / 300 Taxman 587 (SC) Editorial : Dhanashree Ravindra Pandit (Smt.) v. IT Department (2024) 340 CTR 412 / 241 DTR 66(Karn)(HC), Certain observations is stayed.)

The Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015

S. 50 : Punishment for failure to furnish in return of income, any information about an asset (including financial interest in any entity)located outside India-Punishment for false statement in verification-Assets acquired prior to the coming into force of the Black Money Act-In the criminal petition, there was no challenge to the validity of S. 72(c)-Observations of the High Court in para 15 regarding application of Art. 20 of the Constitution of India are stayed till further order. [S.2(11), 2(12), 10, 52, 59, 72(C), IT Act, 131, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.200, 256, Art.20]

Rathna Akshaya Estates (P) Ltd. v. PCIT (2024) 340 CTR 159 / 238 DTR 32 (Mad)(HC) Saravana Selvarathnam Retail(P) Ltd v. PCIT 2024) 340 CTR 159 / 238 DTR 32 (Mad)(HC)

S. 281B : Provisional attachment-Protect the interest of the Revenue-Properties are mortgaged-Working capital-Order is passed directing the Revenue to lift the attachment on bank account to enable the assessee to avail the working capital facilities etc. from the banks. [Art. 226]

Aditya Institute of Technology & Management v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2024) 340 CTR 208 / 240 DTR 447/ 163 Taxmann.com 738 (AP)(HC)

S. 276B : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to pay to the credit tax deducted at source-Reasonable cause-Paid tax with interest-Prosecution is quashed. [S. 278AA, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S 482]

PCIT v. Thakur Prasad Sao & Sons (P) LTD. (2024) 340 CTR 10 / 238 DTR 313 / 163 Taxmann.com 449 (Cal)(HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Not specifying the charge-Order of Tribunal quashing the penalty is set aside and directed the Tribunal to decide on merits-Interpretation of statutes-Rule of literal construction. [S. 260A, 271(IB), Expln. 5A, 274]

Essence Commodities (P) LTD. v ACIT (2024) 340 CTR 718 / 238 DTR 294 (MP)(HC) Editorial. Review petition is dismissed, Essence Commodities (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2024) 340 CTR 705 / 238 DTR 281/ 163 Taxmann.com 473 (MP)(HC)

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Cross objections becoming infructuous-Appeal of Revenue dismissed-Cross objection dismissed-No substantial question of law. [S. 253(4), Rule, 47(2), Form No.36A]

Essence Commodities (P) LTD. v ACIT (2024) 340 CTR 705 / 238 DTR 281/ 163 Taxmann.com 473 (MP)(HC) Editorial: Essence Commodities (P) LTD. v ACIT (2024) 340 CTR 718 / 238 DTR 294 (MP)(HC)

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Review-Mistake apparent-No error apparent on face of record-Decision or order cannot be reviewed merely because it is erroneous and there was no reason to review/recall order of High Court. [S. 253(4), Rule, 47(2), Form No.36A, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 47 Rule 1]

Sham Basheer v. CIT (A) (2024) 340 CTR 742 / 240 DTR 219 (Ker)((HC) Editorial : Order of single judge is set aside, Sham Basheer v. CIT (A).(2024) 340 CTR 739 / 240 DTR 217 (Ker)(HC)

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Multiple e-mail id-Opportunity of being heard-Primary and email id-Notices were sent email-Responded by the assessee-Opportunity of hearing was given-Writ petition is dismissed. [S. 254(1) Art. 226]

Sham Basheer v. CIT (A).(2024) 340 CTR 739 / 240 DTR 217 (Ker)(HC) Editorial : Sham Basheer v. CIT (A) (2024) 340 CTR 742 / 240 DTR 219 (Ker)(HC) is set aside.

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Multiple e-mail id-Opportunity of being heard-Notices were sent email-Responded by the assessee-Communications to the assessee were not sent at the addresses indicated in the appeal memorandum-Order of single judge dismissing the petition. is set aide-CIT(A) is directed to issue a fresh notice of hearing at correct email address and thereafter pass the orders in the appeal-Strictures-Department is advised to evolve a procedure whereby e-mail ids furnished by the assessees are regularly updated after confirmation with the assessee, so that at any given point in time, an assessee can only insist upon a maximum of three e-mail ids to which communications intended for him may be addressed. [S. 254(1) Art. 226]

Sushen Mohan Gupta v. PCIT (2024) 340 CTR 57 / 240 DTR 281 / 161 Taxmann.com 257 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 226 : Collection and recovery-Modes of recovery-Stay-Pendency of appeal-Prima facie case-Pre-deposit of 20 percent of demand is not mandatory-Matter remanded to the AO for reconsideration.[S. 250, Art. 226]