Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


CIT v. Padmavathi (Smt) ( 2020) 120 taxmann.com 187 (Mad) (HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Assessment – Limited scrutiny case – Commissioner cannot exercise the power to look in to any issue which the Assessing Officer Could not look at [ S.50C(2),56(2)(vii)(b)(ii), 143(3)]

Karuturi Gobal Ltd v . Dy.CIT( 2020) 116 taxmann.com 924 ( Karn) (HC)

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record –Limitation of six months- Tribunal does not have the power to condone the delay – High court has the power to condone the delay- Tribunal is bound to dispose the appeal on merits even in the absence of the assessee or its counsel – Dismissal of appeal for prosecution is resulted in a failure of justice . [ S.144C , 254(1) , ITAT, R. 24 , Art ,226, 227 ]

Sanjay Sawhney v .PCIT ( 2020) 116 taxmann.com 701/ 273 Taxman 33 / 192 DTR 105/ 316 CTR 392( Delhi) (HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal – Duties- Oral application – Subject matter of appeal – Order passed by the ITAT suffered from perversity in so far as it refused to allow the assessee to urge the grounds by way of an oral application under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules – Matter remanded back before the ITAT with a direction to hear the matter afresh by allowing the assessee to raise the additional grounds [ S.153C, ITAT Rules , R.27 ]

ITO v. Centrum Capital limited ( 2020) BCAJ-November -P. 55 (Mum) (Trib)

S. 253 : Appellate Tribunal – Cross objection- Ground can be raised for the first time which was not taken even in an appeal before CIT(A) [ S.14A, 254(1) R.8D ,Form 36A , Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 , Order, 9 , Rule, 3 ]

Keshalal Devakranbhai Patel v .ACIT ( 2020) 118 taxmann.com 223 ( Rajkot) (Trib)

S. 250 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Duties – Dismissal of appeal merely on technical ground that written submission field by the assessee did not bear the signature of assessee is held to be not justified – Matter remanded to the file of CIT (A) to decide the issue on merit [ S.250(6), 271 AAA ]

Vattiyoorkavu Service Co -Op Bank Ltd v .ITO ( 2020) 115 taxmann.com 68/ 270 Taxman 274 ( Ker) (HC)

S. 250 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Duties- Rectification of defects – Power to grant stay – Dismissing the statutory appeal on grounds of limitation would result in failure of justice- Directed the CIT (A) to decide on merit . [ S.251 , Art , 226 ]

Tvl. Sanmac Motor Finance Ltd v. CCIT (2020) 16 taxmann.com 437/ 271 Taxman 51 ( Mad) (HC)

S. 234A : Interest – Default in furnishing return of income – Waiver of interest -Power of CBDT – Incapacitated for making any payment due to wound up – Entitle to partial relief [ S.119 . 234B, 234C ]

Manambur Serices Co -Co -Operative Bank Ltd v. ITO ( 2020) The Chamber’s Journal – March – P. 116 ( Ker) (HC)

S. 226 : Collection and recovery – Modes of recovery – Stay of demand- Pendency of rectification application- No coercive steps to be taken till the rectification application is disposed off [ S.80P, 154, 225 250, Art .226 ]

Sandeep Bhargava (HUF) v.DCIT ( 2020) 117 taxmann.com 677 (Chd) (Trib)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake – Change of opinion – Capital gains – Land used for agricultural purposes – Claim allowed in original assessment proceedings- Assessee means individual only or it includes HUF- Debatable issue – Rectification order is held to be not valid in law .[ S.45 , 54B ]

Diwakar N. Shetty v. DCIT ( 2020) BCAJ -November – P. 57 ( Mum) (Trib)

S. 153C : Assessment – Income of any other person – Search – Satisfaction – Additional ground – Date on which satisfaction is recorded by the Assessing Officer for invoking the provisions would be deemed to be the date of receiving documents by the Assessing Officer of other person- Allowed the additional ground and quashed the assessment order . [ S. 132, 132A 144 ]