Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Supreme Construction & Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Bom) (HC) www.itatonline.org

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017

S. 73 : Determination of tax not paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised for any reason other than fraud or any wilful -misstatement or suppression of facts – Demands and recovery – Mere claim of demand being without jurisdiction does not warrant waiver of statutory pre-deposit requirement for filing appeal against GST order- Review – Maintainability – Procedural Lapse – Absence of Proper Advocate’s Certificate – No new grounds for review – Review petition is dismissed with costs of Rs 10000. [S.107, Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, 226, Bombay High Court (O.S.) Rules, Art. 226]

Satyam Computer Services Limited v. CBDT (Telangana) (HC) www.itatonline .org .

S. 119: Central Board of Direct Taxes- Powers of CBDT – Genuine hardship – Reassessment – Fictitious income – CBDT’s refusal to allow re computation despite established fraud – Order quashed and set aside. [S. 10A, 119(2)(b), 139(5), 147, 154,245, 264, 281B, Art. 14, 19(1)(g), 226 , 265, 300A ]

Abdul Saeed Issak v. INT Tax Ward (3) (Mum)(Trib) . www.itatonline .org .

S. 151 : Reassessment – Sanction for issue of notice –Additional ground admitted – Approval from incorrect authority – Notice issued without valid sanction from specified authority – Notice is quashed and set aside. [S. 144C(13) , 147,148, 148A(b), 148A(d), 151(ii), Art. 226]

Leena Power Tech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (Bom)(HC)www.itatonline .org

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record –Limitation – COVID extension not applicable –Rectification application is filed beyond period of six months – Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone delay – Writ petition is dismissed. [Art. 226]

Lupin Limited v. Dy CIT 3(4) (Bom)(HC). www.itatonline.org

S. 147: Reassessment – With in four years- Change of opinion – No fresh tangible material – Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection is quashed. [S. 35AC, 80G, 143(3), 148, Art. 226]

Mahesh Mathuradas Ganatra v. CPC (Bom)(HC)www.itatonline .org

S. 250 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Procedure – Stay of demand – Refund adjustment – Delay in disposal of stay application – Strictures – The delay of six years in deciding the stay application is unjustified and that respondents cannot take advantage of their own delay- The Court directed the revenue to refund the amount within four weeks and suggested that the petitioner apply for an early hearing before CIT(A) – The court further directed CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal before 31 May 2025 and ordered Chief Commissioner of Income -tax to investigate the delay in disposing of the appeal pending since 2018- Writ petition is allowed . [S. 143(1),143(3), 225, 226, 245, 250(6A), Art. 226]

Sanjay Patel v. ACIT(Bom) (HC) www.itatonline .org

S. 148A: Reassessment – Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice -Income from other sources – Failure to respond to notice – Audit objection after amendment – Factual disputes can not be adjudicated in writ proceedings when an alternative remedy is available- Writ petition is dismissed with liberty to file an appeal. [S. 57, 142(1), 143(3), 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]

ACIT v. Neelam Omprakash Singh (Mum)( Trib)www.itatonlline .org

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record – Development agreement – Cost Inflation Index – Year of taxability – Tribunal’s common order applied to all co-owners – Miscellaneous application of Revenue is dismissed. [S. 45 , 48 , 254(1)]

Sejal Jewellery & others v. UOI .(Bom) (HC) www.itatonline.org

S. 148: Reassessment – Income of any other person – Search – Search material pertains to third party – Notice of reassessment under Section 148 is held without jurisdiction – Section 153C and not section 148 is to be resorted to- Notice of reassessment is quashed and set aside . [S. 132, 147, 151(1), 153A, 153C, Art. 226]

Munchener Ruckversicherungs Gesellshaft Aktiengesellschaft In Munchen v.CIT (IT) (2024) 341 CTR 941 / 8 NYPCTR 1232 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 264: Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Credit for tax deducted at source-Double taxation agreement-Refund interest-Respondents are directed to refund the amount along with statutory interest forthwith. [S. 90, 155(14), 199, Form No 266AS, Art. 226]