Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Grandhi Sri Venkata Amarendra v. Jt. CIT (2024) 301 Taxman 516/341 CTR 947 / 244 DTR 139 (AP)(HC)

S. 271D : Penalty-Accepts any loan or deposit –Not recived any cash loan-Un explained money-Penalty levied without recording the satisfaction-Not recorded any finding that there had been any violation of provisions of section 269SS-Penalty order is set aside. [S.69A,153C, 269SS, Art. 226]

PCIT v. Ambady Krishna Menon [2024] 163 taxmann.com 141 (Ker)(HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Capital gains-Additional income offered before issue of notice under section 148-Additional income cannot be treated as concealed income-Honesty of assessee in disclosing mistake and paying differential tax before assessment would negate grounds for imposing a penalty-Deletion of penalty is affirmed-[S. 45, 131, 143(1), 143(3), 147 148]

PCIT v ICICI Bank Ltd [2024] 161 taxmann.com 454 (Bom) (HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Bonafide claim-Disallowance of interest-Order of Tribunal deleting the penalty is affirmed. [S. 36(1)(vii)]

CIT v. Satish Kumar Agarwal (2024) 301 Taxman 335 (Raj)(HC)

S. 268A: Appeal-Instructions-Circulars-Monetary limits-Enhancing monetary limits-Applicable to all pending appeals. [S. 253, 260A]

Bahar Infocons (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2024) 301 Taxman 349 /341 CTR 705 / 243 DTR 417 (Bom)(HC)

S. 264: Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Bonafide mistake-Subsequent to the assessment –Not filed revised return-Over assessed-Commissioner has the power to grant the relief-Rejection order of CIT is quashed and set aside and directed to decide on merit.[S.43B, 139(5), 143(1), 143(3) Art, 226]

CIT(E) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (2024) 301 Taxman 501 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –
Denial of exemption-Trust or institution-Investment restrictions-Jurisdictional High Court in favour of assessee when the Assessing Officer has passed the order-Revision order is quashed-Order of Tribunal is affirmed. [S. 2(15), 13(8) 143(3), 260A]

PCIT v. North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd. [2024] 469 ITR 4 /164 taxmann.com 307 (Meghalaya)(HC).

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Method of accounting-Once order under S. 263 became final and stood quashed-No question can arise of passing another order as it will be invalid in eyes of law. [S. 143(3), 145, 260A]

PCIT v. Green Park (2024) 301 Taxman 617 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record –Limited scrutiny for verification of cash deposits during demonetization period-Revision order is quashed by the Tribunal-Rectification application of Revenue is rejected-Order of Tribunal rejecting the rectification application is affirmed. [S.68 69C, 115BBE,263, Art. 226]

Sitaram Raikwar v. NFAC (2024) 301 Taxman 528 (MP)(HC)

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Procedure-Assessment against dead person-Legal heirs-No notice was served on the legal heirs-Order is set aside-CIT(A) is directed to hear the appeal a fresh.[S.143(3), 159, Art. 226]

Harsh Dhanuka HUF v. PCIT (2024) 469 ITR 162 / 164 taxmann.com 193/341 CTR 154 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 245D : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Procedure-Application-Scope of provision-Power of ITSC to pass an order not limited only to aspects covered by application of settlement preferred by the assessee-ITSC empowered to render decision on issues which find mention in report of CIT-Order of Settlement Commission is affirmed.[S. 153A, 245C, 245D(4), Art. 226]