Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Central Provinces Manganese Ore co Ltd v. CIT (1986) 160 ITR 961 (SC)/58 CTR 112/27 taxman 275 (SC)

S.246A : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Appealable orders – Denial of liability to pay interest under section 139(8) and 215 of the Act can be challenged in appeal – waiver or reduction of such interests are not appealable orders [ S.246(c)]

Columbia Sportswear Company v. DIT (2012) 346 ITR 161/75 DTR 33/251 CTR 353/210 Taxman 42/2012 (283) ELT 321 (SC)

S. 245N : Advance rulings – AAR Rulings can be challenged but not directly in the Supreme Court. [S. 245S, Constitution of India-Arts. 136, 226, 227]

Ajmera Housing Corporation v. CIT (2010) 326 ITR 642/193 Taxman 193/234 CTR 118/43 DTR 276 (SC)/8 SCC 739/(2011) 221 Taxation 1 (SC)

S. 245C : Settlement Commission – Application for settlement of cases – Undisclosed income – full and true disclosure – Revising the application during the course of proceedings is not permissible. [S. 245D(4)]

GE India Technology Cen. P. Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 327 ITR 456/193 Taxman 234/234 CTR 153/44 DTR 201/10 SCC 29/7 taxmann.com 18 (SC)

S. 195 : Deduction of tax at source – Payment to non-resident – Obligation to deduct tax arises only when a remittance is chargeable to tax under the Act – No obligation to deduct tax arises the moment a remittance is made [S. 192, 195(1) , 195(2), 237 ]

PILCOM v. CIT (2020) 425 ITR 312/188 DTR 1/314 CTR 39/(2020) 271 Taxman 200 (SC)

S. 194E : Deduction of tax at source – Non-resident – Payments to sports associations being in the nature of guarantee money were intricately connected with the event – Income accrues and arises in India and assessee was liable to deduct tax at source under section 194E – The obligation to deduct tax is not affected by the DTAA. [ S. 9(1) ,115BBA ]

K. R. Patel (Through legal heirs) v. CIT (1999) 239 ITR 738/106 Taxman 151/155 CTR 585 (SC)

S. 168: Executors – Taxability of estate in the hands of executor –Representative assessee- Existence of Trust – Prior to trust – taxable as executor – not as trustee. [ 160 ]

T. S. Balaram ITO v. Volkart Bros (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC)

S. 154 :Rectification of mistake – Mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake – It should not require a long drawn process of reasoning where there may be conceivably two opinions – ITO was incompetent to pass orders under section 154 of the Act to rectify the assessment. [ Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ,S.17(1) ]

Super Malls (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2020) 423 ITR 281/187 DTR 257/313 CTR 501/115 taxmann.com 1 /273 Taxman 55605 (SC)

S. 153C: Assessment – Income of any other person – Search and seizure – Complying with the requirement of recording of satisfaction is mandatory – If AO of the searched person and the other person is same, a single satisfaction note prepared by the AO stating that documents seized belonged to the other person and not the searched person would tantamount to complying with the mandatory requirements of section 153C. [S.132(1), 133A , 158BD]

ITO v. Techspan India (P) Ltd. (2018) 404 ITR 10/165 DTR 130/302 CTR 74/255 Taxman 152 (SC)

S. 147: Reassessment-Change of opinion-Deduction was allowed in the original assessment- on the same facts to hold that the excess deduction was allowed will be change of opinion-therefore, reassessment was held to be bad in law. [S. 10A,148]

CIT v. British Paints India Ltd. (1991) 188 ITR 44/54 Taxman 499 91 CTR 108 (SC)

S. 145: Method of accounting – Valuation of inventories – Finished goods – Goods valued below cost – Stock in trade- Rejection of method of valuation is held to be justified .