Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category

Ganesh Dass Khanna v. ITO (2023) 156 417 (Delhi )( HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment – Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice – Where the alleged escaped income is below the prescribed monetary threshold of Rs.50 lakhs, the period of limitation as stipulated under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 149 of the 1961 Act would be applicable- The period prescribed under the said Clause is three (03) years from the end of the relevant assessment year – Reopening notices dated 30.6.2021 and 28.06.2021 issued were held to be barred by limitation . [ S. 148 , 148A(b) , 148A(d), 149(1))(a) , Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, S. 3 , Art .142 , 226 ]

All India Federation of Tax Practioners v .UOI ( Delhi)( HC) www.itatonline .org

S. 250: Appeals – Commissioner of ( Appeals ) – National Faceless Appeal Centre ( NFAC) -Pendency of appeals – Delay in disposal of appeals – Honourable court has directed the government to take appropriate measures to fill up all vacant posts and also increase the sanctioned strength of Commissioner (Appeals) so as to achieve the target at least 570 of such posts . [S. 246, 250(6A), Art . 226 ]

Naresh Manakchand Jain v. The Registrar, ITAT (Bom)(HC)

S. 254(1): Appellate Tribunal- Powers- Ex -parte order – Search – Alleged Accommodation entry provider – 32,000+ beneficiaries- Shell companies -Alleged Money Laundering – Direction issued by the Tribunal to AO to intimate/report to SEBI, ED, MCA and ROC regarding details of money laundering activities-Directed the Assessing officer to share information about all beneficiaries within 90 days – Ex -parte order was quashed – Direction of the Appellate Tribunal was set aside – Tribunal must try and confine itself to the question that really arises in the appeal before it and not travel outside the ambit of its jurisdiction and express opinions prejudicial to the assessee which may help the Department in taking proceedings against the assessee – Court directed the Tribunal decide on merits . [S. 68, 132, 150, Prevention of Money- Laundering Act, 2002; 11, Art. 226]

Hasmukh Estates Pvt Ltd v. ACIT ( Bom)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment – Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice – Information – Internal Audit objection- Not permissible – Information not based on the objection raised by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India – Reassessment impermissible- Change of opinion- Audit objection raised by CAG a view deviating from that which was taken in the course of original assessment order is change of opinion -Impermissible . [ S. 45, 48, 50C, 148 ,148A(b), 148A(d), 151 Art. 226 ]

Medeor Hospital Ltd. v. PCIT (2023) 291 Taxman 368 (Delhi)(HC)

Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.
S. 4 : Filing of declaration and particulars to be furnished-Delay in filing of an appeal-Pending-Pendency of appeal. [S. 2(1)(a), 10, Art. 226]

Xiaomi Tecnology India (P) Ltd v.Dy.CIT(2023) 291 Taxman 315 (Karn)(HC)

S. 281B : Provisional attachment-Fixed deposit of two banks-Recording of satisfaction-Mere apprehension that huge tax demands were likely to be raised on completion of assessment was not sufficient to constitute formation of opinion for purpose of provisional attachment-Order of provisional attachment is held to be illegal.[Art. 226]

Suresh Kumar Agarwal v. UOI (2023) 291 Taxman 258 (Jharkhand)(HC)

S. 276CC : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to furnish return of income-Filed belated return and also deposited amount of tax along with interest for delay which was accepted by authority concerned-No sentence could be imposed u/s 276CC of the Act [S.. 153A, 279(1). Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S 397]

P.S. Mallikarjun v. ITO (2023) 291 Taxman 275 (Mad.)(HC) Editorial: Order of single Judge is modified, P.S. Mallikarjun v. ITO (WP No.20575 of 2022 dt. 11-8-2022 (Mad)(HC)

S. 276C : Offences and prosecutions-Willful attempt to evade tax-Failure to disclose capital gain tax-Civil suit-Cost of Rs.50000 was expunged-Writ petition was dismissed-Civil Judge was directed to dispose the case preferably within a period of twelve months. [Indian Evidence Act, 1872, S.120, Art. 226]

PCIT v. Jayashree Jayakar Mohanka (Smt.) (2023) 291 Taxman 273 (Cal) (HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Additions was deleted-Penalty order was quashed.

PCIT v. Bharat Infra Tech (P.) Ltd. [2022] 291 Taxman 185 (Karn)(HC)

S. 268A : Appeal-Instructions-Circulars-Monetary limits-Tax liability below 1 crore-Department appeal was dismissed.[S. 260A]