Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


PCIT v. Minal Nayan Shah (2020) 428 ITR 23 (Guj)(HC) Editorial: Order in Minal Nayan Shah. (Smt.) v PCIT (2020) 180 ITD 149 (Ahd) (Trib.) affirmed .

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Capital gains – Purchase of three units in same building- Assessing Officer allowing the exemption taking one of plausible views – Order is not erroneous . [ S.45 , 54 ,54F, 260A ]

CIT v. Aztec Software Technology Ltd. (2020) 428 ITR 245 (Karn)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Export of computer software- Development of software at client’s site outside India- Plausible views -Revision is held to be not valid [ S. 10A]

CIT v. V. M. Salgaonkar Brothers (P) Ltd (2020) 428 ITR 386/ 317 CTR 529/ 195 DTR 241/ ( 2021) 277 Taxman 469 (Bom) (HC)

S. 260A : Appeal – High Court – High court refusing to frame question as substantial question of law — High Court cannot review its decision — Even if the principle of res judicata does not apply to tax matters, consistency and certainty of law would require the State to take a uniform position and not change its stand in the absence of change in facts or the law [ S.260A(4) ]

PCIT v. Solan District Truck Operators Transport Co-Operative Society (2020) 428 ITR 264 / 274 Taxman 397 (HP) (HC)

S. 260A : Appeal – High Court -Monetary limit- Case not falling within exception — Appeal not maintainable [ S.253 , 254(2) ]

PCIT v. Ambuja Darla Kashlog Mangoo Transport Co-Operative Society (2020) 428 ITR 94/ 195 DTR 99/ 317 CTR 363/ 269 Taxman 618 (HP) (HC)

S. 260A : Appeal – High Court – Case not falling within exception — Appeal not maintainable [ S. 143(1), 154 , 244A 254(2) ]

CIT v. Emgeeyar Pictures P. Ltd. (2020) 428 ITR 341 (Mad)(HC)

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record – Reassessment – Tribunal has power to rectify the obvious error – Tribunal holding that capital gains were assessable in assessment year 2001-02 – Tribunal erred in entertaining new plea of assess ability of capital gain- Consequential reassessment order was not barred by limitation -Order of Tribunal is set aside and matter remanded to the Assessing Officer [ S. 148 , 149 , 150 (2)]

M. Palani Adaicalam v .ACIT (2020) 428 ITR 47 / ( 2021) 277 Taxman 176(Mad) (HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal – Duties- Order passed without considering submission and earlier decision – Duty to refer larger Bench – Matter remanded. [ S.273B ]

CIT v .Hyundai Motor India Ltd. (2020) 428 ITR 539 (Mad) (HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal – Duties- Speaking order – Reassessment – After the expiry of four years- Quashing of reassessment – Matter remanded as the Tribunal has not passed a speaking order [ S. 5OB , 147 , 148 , 253 ]

Mulberry Silks Limited v. ITST (2020) 428 ITR 136 / ( 2021 ) 277 Taxman 361 / 201 DTR 49/ 320 CTR 604 (Mad) (HC) Editorial: Order of single Judge is affirmed Mulberry Silks Ltd v .ITST (2020) 426 ITR 444 / 117 Taxmann.com 62/ ( 2021) 201 DTR 56/ 320 CTR 611 62 (Mad) (HC)

S. 245C : Settlement Commission – Settlement of cases – Jurisdiction of High Court -Territorial Jurisdiction of Madras High Court — Order of Bench of Settlement Commission at Chennai — Petition not maintainable- Place where cause of action arises – Doctrine of Forum Conveniens . [ S. 132, 260A, Art , 226, 227 ]

Dy. CIT (IT) v. Hitachi Power Europe Gmbh and Ors. (2020) 428 ITR 208/ 194 DTR 33/ 316 CTR 777 (Mad) (HC) Editorial : Single judge order in Hitachi Power Europe Gmbh v. ITSC (2020)423 ITR 472 / 194 DTR 44/ 316 CTR 787(Mad)(HC) , affirmed .

S.245C: Settlement Commission – Settlement of cases –Powers – Settlement Commission cannot consider merits of case at the stage of admission [ S .245D(2C ) ]