Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


S.J. Suryah v. Dy. CIT (2025) 304 Taxman 261 (SC) Editorial : S.J. Suryah v. Dy. CIT (2022) 288 Taxman 621 (Mad)(HC)

S. 276CC : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to furnish return of income-Adjudicating proceedings would not be binding on proceedings for criminal prosecution and both proceedings could be launched simultaneously- Tribunal in adjudicating proceedings disposed appeals merely on ground of limitations and merits raised in complaint with regard to non-filing of return of income, non-payment of advance tax, non-payment of tax demanded, suppression of true and correct income were not considered-Criminal prosecution initiated against petitioner could not be quashed- SLP filed against impugned order of High Court was dismissed [S. 139(1) 148, 153A, 276C, Art. 136]

ITD v. Anurag Bagari (2025) 304 Taxman 263 (SC) Editorial : Anurag Bagaria v.ITD (2024) 158 taxmann.com 546 (Karn)(HC)

S. 276C : Offences and prosecutions-Willful attempt to evade tax-Set off of short term capital loss against long term capital gains- Search-Revised return-Delayed payment of tax as revised return was filed after search was conducted on assessee and merely because claims of deductions were not accepted or were not acceptable to revenue, that by itself would not amount to wilful evasion of tax and accordingly, proceedings pending before Special Court against assessee were quashed-SLP filed by revenue was dismissed [S. 139, Art. 136]

ITO (TDS) v. Aditya Institute of Technology and Management (2025) 304 Taxman 661 (SC) Editorial : Aditya Institute of Technology and Management v.State of Andhra Pradesh (2024) 163 taxmann.com 738 (AP)(HC)

S. 276B : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to pay to the credit tax deducted at source-Tax deducted at source could not be remitted to Central Government within time due to delay in grant of fee reimbursement by State Government-Reasonable cause-High Court quashed the criminal prosecution- SLP of revenue dismissed. [S.201(1)(a),278AA, 279, Art. 136]

KPC Medical College and Hospital v. PCIT (Central) (2025) 304 Taxman 679 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Not specifying the charge-None of the relevant columns have been indicated nor have the irrelevant columns been struck off- Appeal of assessee was allowed-Order of Tribunal affirming the penalty was quashed and set aside. [S.260A, 274]

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]