Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 275 Taxman 591 / 192 DTR 87 / 315 CTR 624 (SC)

S. 241A : Refund-Power to with hold in certain cases – Review petition of the assessee is dismissed . [ S. 143 (1) , 143(ID ) 143 (2) ]

Cooner Institute of Health Care & Research Centre (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2020) 273 Taxman 216 / 193 DTR 1 / 315 CTR 900 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 241A : Refund-Power to withhold in certain cases-Limited scrutiny [S.143 (1) . 143 (2), Art. 226 ]

Clean Wind Power Kurnool (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2020) 274 Taxman 408 / 191 DTR 125 / 315 CTR 345 (Delhi)(HC)

S.237: Refunds – Verification of tax deducted at source- Technical glitches and enable TRACES portal – Income-tax Authorities are directed to decide the assessee’s request within four weeks [ S.200A, Art , 226 ]

Indus Towers Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 273 Taxman 563 / 190 DTR 370 / 315 CTR 201 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery – Not following the direction of Court and suppressing the facts – Petitioner mislead High Court at preliminary hearing of petition which led to passing interim order- Petition dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5 lakhs to be paid to Delhi High Court Advocates’ Welfare Trust [ S. 220(6), 250 , Art . 226 ]

CIT v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (2020) 192 DTR 433 / 316 CTR 354 / (2021) 277 Taxman 284 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 192 : Deduction at source – Salary – Reimbursement of expenditure incurred by them towards uniform on the basis of self certification by employees – Not liable to deduct tax at source . [ S. 10 (14)(i) , 201 (IA )

N. Illamathy (Smt.) v. ITO (2020) 275 Taxman 25 / 195 DTR 49 / 317 CTR 543 (Mad.)(HC)

S.149 : Reassessment – Time limit for notice – Direction of CIT (A) – Reassessment barred by limitation cannot be reopened – Reassessment was quashed . [ S.143(1), 149(1)(b) ]

Kasautii Jewellers v. CIT (2020) 274 Taxman 49 / 195 DTR 389 / 317 CTR 675 (Jharkhand)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment – Notice – When alternative remedy of appeal is available under statute, it would not be appropriate and proper for High Court to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction conferred on High Court .[ S.147 , Art , 226 ]

Telekom Malaysia Berhad v. UOI (2020) 273 Taxman 179 / 195 DTR 143/ ( 2021 ) 320 CTR 347 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment – Notice –Alternative remedy – Writ petition dismissed -Order of Single Judge is affirmed [ S. 147, Art , 226 ]

Ashick Abraham v. PCIT (2020) 272 Taxman 538 / 191 DTR 282 / 315 CTR 723 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment –Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer – Proceedings initiated under section 148 shall be proceedings at stage of filing of return under section 139 of the Act- Directed the Assessing Officer to take appropriate decision within a period of one month of the receipt of the copy of judgement . [ S. 124(2), 147 Art , 226 ]

Abdul Azeez Haroon v. Dy. CIT (IT) (2020) 270 Taxman 216 / 194 DTR 306 / 317 CTR 610 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment – Non -Resident Indian – Notice issued by Madurai Income tax Officer when the assessee is staying in Shimoga Karnataka is held to be bad law and without jurisdiction [ S. 120 , 127 , 147 Art , 226 ]