Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


CIT v. Raheja Builders Pvt. Ltd.(2025) 483 ITR 619 (Delhi)(HC) CIT v. Standard Farms Pvt Ltd (2025) 483 ITR 619 (Delhi)(HC) Editorial : Refer to CIT v. Standard Farms Pvt. Ltd. (2025) 483 ITR 621 (Delhi)(HC), SLP dismissed, Standard Farms Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2025) 480 ITR 496 (SC).

S. 245C : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Failure of Settlement Commission to record satisfaction that assessee has made full and true disclosure as to income and manner of earning it-Grant of immunity not in accordance with law-Matter remanded to Settlement Commission. [S.245H, Art. 226]

CIT v. ITSC(2025) 483 ITR 606 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 245C : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Conditions-Bogus purchases-Conduct of assessee not showing co-operation in proceedings-Disclosure was not full and true-Order of settlement commission set aside. [S. 245D(4), 245H(1), Art. 226]

Group M Media India Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (IT) [2023] 157 taxmann.com 487 / (2025) 483 ITR 593 (Bom)(HC)

S. 244A : Refunds-Interest on refunds –Equalisation levy-Refund Interest on refund equalisation levy paid by assessee after three years compensation for use and retention of money collected in excess-Direction for payment of interest at rate of six per cent. From April 1 of the year following the financial year in which excess payments were made by assessee till date of actual refund-When the collection is illegal, there is a corresponding obligation on the Department to refund such amount with interest inasmuch as they have retained and enjoyed the money deposited. A refund due and payable to the assessee is a debt owed and payable by the Department.[Finance Act, 2016, ss. 164(i), 165, 166, 168(1), Art. 226]

Orion Security Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v.Dy. CIT [2023] 155 taxmann.com 411 / (2025) 483 ITR 209 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 226 : Collection and recovery-Modes of recovery-Stay-Pendency of appeal before CIT(A)-20 per cent of demand Computation of such amount-Amounts deducted and collected at source to be factored-The Assessing Officer could not have recovered more than 20 per cent of demand. [S. 156, 246A, 250, Art. 226]

ITO v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (2025) 483 ITR 60 (Patna)(HC)

S. 201 : Deduction at source-Failure to deduct or pay-Order passed beyond reasonable time-Barred by limitation-Deduction of tax at source default after four years from financial years in question. [S. 201(1) 201(IA), 260A]

Kay Kay Overseas Corporation v.Dy. CIT (2025) 483 ITR 63 (Bom)(HC)

S. 197 : Deduction at source-Certificate for lower rate-Assessing Officer passed an order on the assessee’s application under section 197 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 determining the rate of deduction of tax of 0.80 per cent. instead of lower rate of 0.35 per cent. on payments covered by section 194-0-Order set aside.[S.194-O, Art. 226]

Satyendra Kumar alias Satyendra Kumar Singh.v CIT (2025) 483 ITR 359 (Pat)(HC)

S. 158BB: Block assessment-Computation-Undisclosed income –Books and documents discovered during search-Addition is valid. [S. 132, 260A]

Virtusa Consulting Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2025) 483 ITR 356 (Telangana) (HC)

S. 154: Rectification of mistake-Mistake apparent from the record-Refund-Amalgamation-Directions issued for expeditious disposal of rectification application and grant of refund upon migration of cases within Department. [S. 237, Art. 226]

Goutam Sadhan Bose. v.ACIT (2025) 483 ITR 137 (Cal)(HC)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Mistake apparent from the record-Notice issued in name of dead person-Notice quashed. [Art. 226]

PCIT v. Bharatnet Technology Ltd. [2024] 158 taxmann.com 28 / (2025) 483 ITR 435 (P & H)(HC)

S. 153A: Assessment-Search-Undisclosed income-No incriminating material-Order of Tribunal deleting the addition is affirmed. [S. 132, 260A]