Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


PCIT v. Dineshchandra Narharishankar Upadhyay (2025) 304 Taxman 609 / 482 ITR 359 (SC) Editorial :PCIT v. Dineshchandra Narharishankar Upadhyay (2025) 173 taxmann.com 835 /482 ITR 350 (Guj)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-Investment in a residential house -More than one house -High Court held that findings of fact recorded by Tribunal in impugned order could not be termed as perverse or contrary to evidence on record and in overall view of matter, decision of Tribunal was correct and required no interference -SLP of revenue dismissed. [S. 54F, 143(3), Art. 136]

Malabar Institute of Medical Sciences Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2025) 304 Taxman 690 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal- Duties-CIT(A) decided the appeal on merits-Revision by the Commissioner-It was incumbent upon Tribunal to have decided appeal on merits rather than finding that the assessee ought to have questioned under section 263 in a separate proceedings-Order of Tribunal set aside to decide for fresh consideration. [S. 115JB,253, 263, 250, 260A]

CIT (IT) v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (2025) 304 Taxman 444 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 254 (1): Appellate Tribunal-Powers- Additional evidence-Writ of mandamus-In absence of any challenge to order of Appellate Tribunal, it was not permissible to issue a mandamus to Appellate Tribunal to admit and consider remaining documents- Writ petition of revenue was dismissed. [S. 254(2), Art. 226]

Patil Ranajagjitsingh Padmasinha (HUF) v. PCCIT (2025) 304 Taxman 452 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 246A : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Appealable orders -Assessment order- Alternative remedy-Writ petition was dismissed with liberty to assessee to avail alternate remedy available under Act. [S.143(3), 250, Art.226]

Standard Farms (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, Central (2025) 304 Taxman 663 (SC) Editorial : Standard Farms (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, Central (2025)170 taxmann.com 591 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 245H : Settlement Commission-Power-Grant immunity from prosecution and penalty -On writ by revenue, High Court held that since there was no foundation for finding of Settlement Commission that there was full and fair disclosure, matter was to be remanded for reconsideration as to whether immunity from penalty and prosecution ought to be granted or not. SLP filed by assessee against impugned order of High Court was dismissed. [S. 245C, 245H, Art. 136]

Sree Metaliks Ltd. v. DGIT (2025) 304 Taxman 58 (Orissa)(HC)

S. 245 : Refund-Set off of refunds against tax remaining payable- Adjustment of refund pertaining to assessment year 2010-11-Successful Resolution Applicant’s (SRA’s) claim to have refund for assessment year 2010-11, was rejected -SRA could only claim to have stepped into and managed affairs of corporate debtor from date of approval of resolution plan on 7-11-2017. [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, S. 31, Art. 226]

Trent Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2025) 304 Taxman 208 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 245 : Refund-Set off of refunds against tax remaining payable-Adjustment order passed by Assessing Officer was in gross violation of principles of natural justice and fair play-The adjustment was to quashed and revenue was directed to deposit adjusted amount in Court. [Art. 226]

Dy. CIT v. Tata Communications Ltd. (2025) 304 Taxman 664 (SC) Editorial : Tata Communications Ltd v.Dy.CIT (2025) 173 taxmann.com 12 (Bom)(HC)

S. 244A : Refund-Interest on refunds -When Tribunal directed Assessing Officer to compute interest under section 244A following principles laid down by Delhi High Court matter was to remanded to Assessing Officer with direction to compute interest payable to assessee under section 244A by strictly applying principles laid down by Tribunal and High Court -SLP of revenue dismissed on account of delay and also on merits. [Art. 136]

PPK Newsclick Studio (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2025) 304 Taxman 509 (SC) Editorial : PPK Newsclick Studio (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2025) 172 taxmann.com 778 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 226 : Collection and recovery-Modes of recovery-Stay-Cash credits -SLP of assessee disposed of by granting liberty to assessee to challenge assessment order relating to assessment year 2022-23 before Commissioner (Appeals) along with an application for grant of stay and for waiver of condition to deposit 20 per cent of disputed tax demand in terms of Office Memoranda issued by CBDT. [S. 250, Art. 136]

Imageads & Communications (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2025) 304 Taxman 47 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 199 : Deduction at source-Credit for tax deducted-When the income was not offered for taxation credit for tax deducted at source was rightly denied by the Tribunal. Order of Tribunal affirmed. [S. 198, 260A]