Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Anurag Bagaria v. ITO (2024) 158 taxmann.com 546 (Karn)(HC)

S. 276C : Offences and prosecutions-Wilful attempt to evade tax-Search-Revised return-Claims of deduction were not accepted-Would not amount to wilful evasion of tax.[S. 132,139(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S. 482]

Bhavna Modi v. ITO [2025] 170 taxmann.com 236 (Raipur)(Trib.)

S. 272A : Penalty-Failure to answer questions-Sign statements-Furnish information-Penalty cannot be levied when the assessment is completed u/s 143(3)-Penalty is deleted.[S.272A(1)(d), 274]

Renu Bala v. Addl.CIT(2024) Chamber’s Journal-August-P. 173 (Delhi)(Trib)

S.271D: Penalty-Takes or accepts any loan or deposit-Cash received-Sale of rights in property-Property was registered in June 2016-Amendment is prospective-Specified sum explanation introduced with effect from 1-6.2015 [S. 269SS]

St. Peter’s School v. ITO (2024) Chamber’s Journal-November-P. 114 (Kol)(Trib)

S. 270A:Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income-Charitable Trust-Depreciation on assets which are claimed as application of income-Bonfide error-Penalty is deleted.[S.270A(9)]

Mohd. Sarwar v. ITO (2024) Chamber’s Journal-May-P. 137 (Hyd)(Trib)

S. 270A : Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income-Not specifying the charge-Penalty levied for misreporting-Notice issued was under reporting of income-Levy of penalty is cancelled. [S. 274]

DCIT v. Sasan Power Ltd (2024) The Chamber’s Journal-January-P. 117 (Mum)(Trib)

S. 270A : Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income-Excess depreciation claimed-Bona fide mistake-Penalty is deleted. [S. 139]

Kusharaj Madhav Bhandary v. ITO (Bom)(HC) www.itatonline.org.

S. 270A:Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income-Rectification order-No penalty proceedings or any other proceedings can be initiated under the assessment order which stand merged in the rectification order.[S. 154, Art. 226]

Indian Education Society v. CIT(E) (2024) Chamber’s Journal-December-P. 105 (Mum)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Barred by limitation-Issue raised in the revision proceedings are different from re-assessment issue under section 147 of the Act-Time limit to be ascertained from 143(1) order and not under section 147 of the Act-Order is barred by limitation.[S.143(1), 147, 148]

Hajaram Purohit v.DCIT (2024) Chamber’s Journal-April-P. 111 (Mum)(Trib)

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Ex-parte order-Miscellaneous application is filed after four years-Six months time limit does not apply to the ex-parte order-Miscellaneous application is allowed-Order is recalled. [ITAT R.1963, R. 24]

PCIT v. Hanubhai R.Sangoni (2024) 165 taxmann.com 300 (Guj)(HC)

S. 253 : Appellate Tribunal-Appeals-Appeal dismissed on account of low tax effect-Audit objection accepted by AO-Miscellaneous application of Revenue to recall the order is dismissed-On writ the Court held that appeal is maintainable-Order of Tribunal is set aside.[S. 254(2), Art. 226]