Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


P.R. Ganapathy v. CIT (2020) 275 Taxman 279 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 244A : Refund-Interest on refunds-Tax deducted by employer-Appellate Authorities have held that tax was not liable to be deducted-Entitle refund with interest. [S. 244A(1)(a)]

DIT(IT) v. Texas Instruments Incorporated (2020) 275 Taxman 614 (Kern.)(HC)

S. 234B : Interest-Advance tax-Non-Resident-Levy of interest is not liable. [S. 195]

CIT v. Media Word Wide (P) Ltd (2020) 275 Taxman 272 (Cal.) (HC)

S. 194C : Deduction at source-Contractors-Contractual work of up-linking and broadcasting programmes-Not technical services-Rightly deducted the tax as per section 194C of the Act-Provisions of Section 194J is not applicable. [S. 9(1)(vii), 194J]

PCIT v. Rameshbhai Jivraj Desai (2020) 275 Taxman 522 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 153A : Assessment-Search-Bad debt-No incriminating documents-Deletion of addition is held to be justified.

Chandrasekaran v. ITO (2020) 275 Taxman 452 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment-Service of notice-Notice to an authorised representative-Representative appeared before the Assessing Officer-Alternative remedy-Writ is held to be nor maintainable. [S. 147, 246, 292BB, Art. 226]

PCIT v. Safe Corrugated Containers P. Ltd. (2020) 275 Taxman 53 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Business loss-Share dealing-Allowed after making thorough scrutiny-Review of assessment is not permissible. [S. 28(i), 148]

S. Kamarasu v. ITO (2020) 275 Taxman 392 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Guideline value-Cannot be the basis for reopening of assessment. [S. 45, 69, 148, Art. 226]

CIT v. Ramesh Shroff (2020) 275 Taxman 323 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Capital gains-Agricultural land-Later the property used for commercial purposes-No new tangible material-Reassessment is held to be bad in law. [S. 2(14), 54F, 148]

CIT v. SPR Group Holdings P. Ltd. (2020) 275 Taxman 215 (Karn.) (HC)

S. 145A : Method of accounting-Valuation-Excise duty-Excisable goods manufactured and lying in stock, excise duty element is not to be included in valuation of closing stock.

Wipro GE Health Care Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2020) 275 Taxman 163 / (2021) 197 DTR 356 / 319 CTR 324 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel Limited remand by the Appellate Tribunal-Order structured on wrong legal premises-Alternative remedy is not a bar-Order quashed and directed to pass the order in accordance with the direction of the Appellate Tribunal. [Art. 226]