Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Birmala Projects (P.) Ltd. v. Ashwani Ahluwalia (2025) 304 Taxman 115 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 269ST : Mode of undertaking transactions -Cash payment- Redevelopment of immovable property-Defendant, seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII rule 11(d) of the CPC on the ground of statutory violation, is misconceived, as the same fails to establish any express legal prohibition that would preclude the Court from adjudicating the instant claim for recovery.[S.269ST(b), 271DA, 273B, Indian Contract Act, 1872, S.2(h), 10, 23]

PCIT v. Savitri Verma (2025) 304 Taxman 695 (Chhattisharh)(HC)

S. 268A : Appeal- Instructions-Where monetary limit for filing appeals by revenue before High Court had been enhanced to Rs. 2 crores vide circular dated 17-09-2024 and tax liability of assessee was less than Rs. 2 crores- Appeal of revenue dismissed due to monetary limits.[S. 260A]

Anjanaben R Shah v. PCIT (2025) 304 Taxman 645 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 264 :Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Unexplained money-Non -Resident-Cash deposit in bank-Non -service of notice-Order passed under section 264 was quashed and set aside and matter was to be remanded to Commissioner to pass a fresh order after considering facts of case and submissions of assessee that assessment order was passed on basis of notice never served.[S. 69A, 144, 147, 148, Art. 226]

PCIT v. Asiatic Bearing Co. (2025) 304 Taxman 533 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –
Unexplained investments-Unaccounted cash sales-Assessing Officer had duly examined issue of unaccounted cash sales during assessment proceedings -Order of Tribunal quashing the revision order passed by the Commissioner is affirmed. [S.69C 143(3), 260A, 263, Explanation 2.]

PCIT v. NYA International (2025) 304 Taxman 669 / 482 ITR 281 (SC) Editorial : NYA International v. PCIT (2025) 173 taxmann.com 102 (Guj)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Cash credit-Order of High Court quashing the revision order was affirmed-SLP of revenue dismissed.[S. 68, Art. 136]

PCIT v. Dineshchandra Narharishankar Upadhyay (2025) 304 Taxman 609 / 482 ITR 359 (SC) Editorial :PCIT v. Dineshchandra Narharishankar Upadhyay (2025) 173 taxmann.com 835 /482 ITR 350 (Guj)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-Investment in a residential house -More than one house -High Court held that findings of fact recorded by Tribunal in impugned order could not be termed as perverse or contrary to evidence on record and in overall view of matter, decision of Tribunal was correct and required no interference -SLP of revenue dismissed. [S. 54F, 143(3), Art. 136]

Malabar Institute of Medical Sciences Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2025) 304 Taxman 690 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal- Duties-CIT(A) decided the appeal on merits-Revision by the Commissioner-It was incumbent upon Tribunal to have decided appeal on merits rather than finding that the assessee ought to have questioned under section 263 in a separate proceedings-Order of Tribunal set aside to decide for fresh consideration. [S. 115JB,253, 263, 250, 260A]

CIT (IT) v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (2025) 304 Taxman 444 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 254 (1): Appellate Tribunal-Powers- Additional evidence-Writ of mandamus-In absence of any challenge to order of Appellate Tribunal, it was not permissible to issue a mandamus to Appellate Tribunal to admit and consider remaining documents- Writ petition of revenue was dismissed. [S. 254(2), Art. 226]

Patil Ranajagjitsingh Padmasinha (HUF) v. PCCIT (2025) 304 Taxman 452 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 246A : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Appealable orders -Assessment order- Alternative remedy-Writ petition was dismissed with liberty to assessee to avail alternate remedy available under Act. [S.143(3), 250, Art.226]

Standard Farms (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, Central (2025) 304 Taxman 663 (SC) Editorial : Standard Farms (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, Central (2025)170 taxmann.com 591 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 245H : Settlement Commission-Power-Grant immunity from prosecution and penalty -On writ by revenue, High Court held that since there was no foundation for finding of Settlement Commission that there was full and fair disclosure, matter was to be remanded for reconsideration as to whether immunity from penalty and prosecution ought to be granted or not. SLP filed by assessee against impugned order of High Court was dismissed. [S. 245C, 245H, Art. 136]