Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Pratik Chimanbhai Gami v. UOI (2024) 299 Taxman 429 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 226 : Collection and recovery-Modes of recovery-Attachment-Joint account holder-Primary account holder-No separate notice is required for having joint account as secondary holder in view of section 226(3)(iii) [S. 226(3)(iii), Art. 226]

Tiruvannamalai District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT (TDS) (2024) 299 Taxman 492 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Stay-Pendency of appeal before CIT(A)-Stay petition did not contain details relating to financial stringency, it was necessary to impose costs on assessee subject to payment of a sum of Rs.10,000/-assessee would be permitted to submit a fresh stay application before assessing officer.[S. 226, 250, Art. 226]

Education Research and Development Foundation v. UOI(2024) 299 Taxman 463 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Stay-Pendency of appeal before CIT(A)-In view of exceptional circumstances as noted in Office Memorandum dated 29-2-2016, assessee was directed to make payment of a sum of Rs.40 lakhs and demand was to be stayed till disposal of appeals.[S. 226, 250, Art. 226]

Vodafone India Services (P.) Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2024) 299 Taxman 497 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Stay-Transfer pricing-Arms’ length price-Conditional stay-Order of Tribunal is affirmed. [S. 92C, 254(2A), Art. 226]

Kunj Bihari Lal Agarwal v. PCIT (2024) 464 ITR 738/ (2023) 152 taxmann.com 339 (Raj)(HC) Editorial : Refer, Kunj Bihari Lal Agarwal v. PCIT (2024) 161 taxmmann.com 156 /464 ITR 744 (Raj)(HC), Kunj Bihari Lal Agarwal v. PCIT (Central) (2024) 299 Taxman 92 / 464 ITR 767 (SC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Stay-Survey-Reassessment-Pendency of appeal before CIT(A)-High pitched assessment-Direction to pay 20 per cent of the demand-Non speaking order-Directed to pass a speaking order Stay was granted subject to deposit of only 10 per cent of demand.[S.133A, 143(3), 147, 148, 156,226, 250, Art. 226]

Kunj Bihari Lal Agarwal v. PCIT (2024) 161 taxmmann.com 156 /464 ITR 744 (Raj)(HC) Editorial : SLP is dismissed, Kunj Bihari Lal Agarwal v. PCIT (Central) (2024) 299 Taxman 92 / 464 ITR 767 (SC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Stay-Survey-Reassessment-Pendency of appeal before CIT(A)-Stay was granted subject to deposit of only 10 per cent of demand.[S.133A, 143(3), 147, 148, 156,226,250, Art. 226]

Kunj Bihari Lal Agarwal v. PCIT (Central) (2024) 299 Taxman 92 / 464 ITR 767 (SC) Editorial: Kunj Bihari Lal Agarwal v. PCIT (2024) 161 taxmmann.com 156 /464 ITR 744 (Raj)(HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Stay-Survey-Reassessment-Pendency of appeal before CIT(A)-Stay was granted subject to deposit of only 10 per cent of demand-There was no procedural impropriety affecting order on stay application-SLP of the assessee is dismissed. [S.133A, 143(3), 147, 148, 156,226,250, Art. 136]

CIT v. Bharti Hexacom Ltd. (2024) 299 Taxman 89/466 ITR 387/ 338 CTR 873 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Bharti Hexacom Ltd(2023) 155 taxmann.com 322/ 458 ITR 593 /335 CTR 1(SC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Waiver of interest-Payment of licence fees-Capital or revenue-Judgement dated 16-10-2023-Telecom Policy commenced in the year 1999, payment of interest for period for which tax demand was now to be met in respect of those cases was to be waived. [S. 35ABB, 37(1), Art. 136]

Malay Kar v. UOI (2024) 299 Taxman 555 (Orissa) (HC)

S. 205 : Deduction at source-Bar against direct demand-Salaried employee-Tax deducted at source-Tax has been deducted at source but not deposited to Government’s account by deductor, deductee-assessee shall not be called upon to pay demand to extent tax has been deducted from his income-Department should not deny benefit of tax deducted at source by employer during relevant financial years. [S. 192, 199, 234B, 234C, Form 26AS, Art. 226]

CIT (LTU) v. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2024) 299 Taxman 488(Bom)(HC)

S. 195 : Deduction at source-Non-resident-Other sums-Computer software manufacturers/suppliers, as consideration for resale/use of computer software through EULAs/distribution agreements-Not royalty-Not taxable in India-OEECD Model Convention-art 12 [S. 9(1)(vi), 9(1(vii), 195(2),201(IA), 260A]