Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


PCIT v. Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation (P.) Ltd. (2020) 272 Taxman 157 (Bom.)(HC) Editorial : SLP of revenue was dismissed , PCIT v. Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation (P) Ltd ( 2021 ) 282 Taxman 463 ( SC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Not recording of satisfaction-Order of Tribunal quashing the reassessment proceeding was affirmed.

Rajesh Prakash Timlo v. PCIT (2020) 272 taxman 59 /116 taxmann.com 487(Bom.)(HC)

S. 264 : Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Conversion of immoveable property in to stock in trade-Shown as capital gains-Matter remanded to Commissioner. [S. 5A, 143(1), Art. 226]

CIT v. International Society For Krishna Consciousness (2020) 272 Taxman 534 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Made enquiries and dropped reassessment proceedings-Possible view-Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 11, 12A, 80G, 139(4A), 147, 148]

Dalbir Singh v. Satish Chand (2020) 273 Taxman 317 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Duties-Pronouncement of orders-Repeated adjournments for orders or for pronouncement of judgment where arguments have been heard and orders have been reserved would not be permissible even during lockdown. [S. 260A, Order XII, Rule 6 of CPC]

Sesa Goa Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 430 ITR 114 / 272 Taxman 543 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 251 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Powers-Inadvertently omitted to make claim for deduction under section 10B-All necessary facts were already on record-CIT (A or Appellate Tribunal ought to have entertained claim-Unlike an ordinary appeal, basic purpose of a tax appeal is to ascertain correct tax liability of assessee in accordance with law-Matter remanded. [S. 10B, 250, 254(1)]

Aranattukara Oriental Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. CIT (2020) 273 Taxman 165 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Stay-Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to decide appeal and stay application without asking for deposit of 20 per cent of tax demand. [S. 226 (6), 249, Art. 226]

Monarch v. ITO (2020) 273 Taxman 63 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Stay-Attachment of bank account is to be limited to 20 percent of demand. [S. 220 (6), Art. 226]

Jindal ITF Ltd. v. UOI (2020) 273 Taxman 39 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Stay of demand-Loan-Stay was granted subject to 20 percent payment of tax in dispute. [S. 68, 220(6), Art. 226]

Subramania Siva v. ITO (2020) 272 Taxman 455 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 199 : Deduction at source-Credit for tax deducted-Issue of manual 26A-Assessee was directed to approach department by making application enclosing Form 16A and department would consider claim of assesse. [Form 16A, 26A, Art. 226]

Ashita Nilesh Patel v. ACIT (2020) 270 Taxman 132 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 179 : Private company-Liability of directors-Notice was silent regarding fact that tax dues could not be recovered from company and, further, there was no whisper of any steps being taken against company for recovery of outstanding amount-Notice against assessee was set aside. [Art. 226]