Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Kalra Papers Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2021) 430 ITR 291/ 279 Taxman 194/ 204 DTR 146/ 321 CTR 524 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 4 : Filing of declaration and particulars to be furnished-Settlement of Disputes-Ex parte order set aside to the Tribunal-Assessee Bound By Undertaking Given To File Application Under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. [IT Act, S. 253, 254(1)

Rattha Citadines Boulevard Chennai Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2021) 430 ITR 7/ 279 Taxman 262 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Rejection of claim for deduction-Reduction of loss does not result in income-Penalty levied was deleted .Levy of penalty.

Babuji Jacob v. ITO (2021) 430 ITR 259 / 277 Taxman 502(Mad.)(HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Notice must specify whether there has been concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income-Levy of penalty is held to be not valid. [S. 274]

Manpowergroup Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (TDS) (2021) 430 ITR 399 / 277 Taxman 108 / 198 DTR 355/ 319 CTR 267(Delhi)(HC)

S. 264 : Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Deduction at source-Certificate for lower rate-Determination of rates without following prescribed procedure-Order is held to be not valid- Order passed with approval of Commissioner-Revision is not maintainable-No alternative remedy- Writ is maintainable. [S. 197, R.28AA, Art. 226]

Sesa Starlite Ltd. v. CIT (2021) 430 ITR 121/318 CTR 197/ 277 Taxman 443/ 206 DTR 315 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue- Queries raised but order without application of mind and consideration of material provided- Revision of order is held to be valid. [S. 10B]

CIT v. Cyber Park Development and Constructions Ltd. (2021) 430 ITR 55/276 Taxman 460 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Commissioner had no power to revise assessment for inadequacy of enquiries or insufficiency of material on record-Order of Tribunal is affirmed- Condonation of delay of 360 days is held to be justified. [S. 254(1)]

CIT v. Shriram Ownership Trust (2021) 430 ITR 356/197 DTR 153/ 318 CTR 233 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Substantial question of law-Additional questions cannot be raised by respondent. [S.144A, 260A(4)]

Pacific Projects Ltd. v. ACIT (2021)430 ITR 522/ 278 Taxman 396/ 198 DTR 129/ 319 CTR 333 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Ex Parte order-Limitation-Notice was not served though change of address was intimated-Rejection of application for recall of order on ground of bar of limitation-Order quashed and set aside-Matter remanded to Tribunal. [S. 253, 254(1), Art. 226]

Kalra Papers Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2021) 430 ITR 291 / 279 Taxman 194/ 204 DTR 146/ 321 CTR 524 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Sufficient cause-Ex-parte order to be set aside even if appeal was decided on merits. [S. 253, 254(1), ITAT R. 1963, R. 25, Art. 226]

Swetha Realmart LLP v. Dy. CIT (2021)430 ITR 159 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Duties-Document not filed due to mistake of counsel-Dismissal of appeal-Not justified.