Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


CIT v. Shriram Properties (P) Ltd. (2020) 269 Taxman 313 (Mad.)(HC) PCIT v. Mangal Tirth Estates Ltd. (2020) 269 Taxman 80 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 268A : Appeal-Monitory tax effect less than of Rs. 1 crore-Appeal dismissed. [S. 260A]

S. Sundaramurthy v. PCIT (2020) 269 Taxman 107 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 264 : Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Capital gains-Sale of agricultural land-Order set aside-Matter remanded to the Assessing Officer [S. 45, 54B, Art. 226]

Curewel (India) Ltd. v. ITO (2020) 269 Taxman 397 / 185 DTR 145 / 312 CTR 164 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Remand-Fresh claim Wholesale remand for framing a fresh assessment,-Assessing Officer could not deny to evaluate fresh claim raised by assessee during remand assessment proceedings. [S. 144]

PCIT v. Star Entertainment Media (P) Ltd. (2020) 269 Taxman 66 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 194C : Deduction at source-Contractors-Payment to cable operators for channel fee-Liable to deduct tax at source under section 194C and not under section 194C of the Act. [S. 194J]

PCIT v. Sankaranarayanan Rajshekar (2020) 269 Taxman 105 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 192 : Deduction at source-Salary-Failure to deposit tax deducted at source-Rectification application-Directed the Assessing Officer to consider the rectification application and pass orders on merits in accordance with law. [S. 143(3), 154, 199, Art. 226]

Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2020) 269 Taxman 120 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment-Objections raised and the Assessing Officer has to pass reasoned order-Challenge of notice is held to be not valid. [S. 147, Art. 226]

PCIT v. Everlon Synthetics (P) Ltd. (2020) 424 ITR 232 /269 Taxman 215 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-One-time settlement with banker-Capital or revenue-Considered during original scrutiny assessment proceedings-Change of opinion-Reassessment is bad in law. [S. 4, 148, 260A]

Uni VTL Precision (P) Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2020) 269 Taxman 278 (Bom.)(HC).

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Share capital-Change of opinion-Existing share holders-Subject matter of regular assessment-Reassessment notice is held to be bad in law. [S. 68, 148 Art. 226]

Shaikh Madar Amanulla v. ITO (2020) 269 Taxman 280 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 144 : Best judgment assessment-Defective return-Order passed without issuing show cause notice or intimation-Principle of natural justice is violated-Matter was to be restored to Assessing Officer for afresh consideration. [S. 139(9), Art. 226]

Kandan & Kannan Medical Agency v. ITO (2020) 269 Taxman 291 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 144 : Best judgment assessment-Assessing Officer has made addition on account of two grounds-Show cause notice u/s 142 (1) was in respect of only one ground-Order set aside and reamended back for redoing the assessment. [S. 69A, 142(1), Art. 226]