Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2024) 461 ITR 133 (Mad)(HC) Editorial : SLP dismissed, Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2024) 461 ITR 142 (SC)

S. 260A: Appeal-High Court-Delay of 2139 days-Absence of sufficient cause-Delay is cannot be condoned.

Purnagiri Rice Mill v. UOI (2024) 296 Taxman 507 (All) (HC)

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Limitation of six months-Ex-parte hearing by ITAT and recalling Ex-parte orders-Time limit of 6 months not to apply-Order of Tribunal is set aside. [S. 253(3), ITAT R. 1963, 24, Art. 226]

PCIT v. Manindra Mohan Mazumdar (2023) 150 taxmann.com 116 (2024) 461 ITR 56 (Cal) (HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Duties-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Losses in speculation business-Tribunal quashing the order of Revision-Documents placed before the Tribunal is not placed before the Commissioner-Matter remanded to the file of the Commissioner. [S. 73(1) 263]

Pradeep Kumar Naredi v. UOI (2022) 138 taxmann.com 378 / (2024) 461 ITR 414 (Cal)(HC) Editorial : Refer, Pradeep Kumar Naredi v. UOI (2024) 461 ITR 418 (Cal) (HC) RSB Industries Ltd v. UOI (2024) 461 ITR 418 (Cal)(HC)

S. 245C : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Conditions-Jurisdiction-Rejection of application-Order of rejection is valid-Court can only ensure proper implementation of law by statutory authority-Not duty of court to legislate or issue any circular or notification.[S.119(2)(b) Art. 226]

Jain Metal Rolling Mills v. UOI (2023) 335 CTR 761/(2024) 296 Taxman 336 / 461 ITR 423 (Mad)(HC)

S. 245C : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Conditions-Retrospective amendment made by the Finance Bill, 2021-Pending applications-last date for filing of application in Section 245C(5) should be read as 31-03-2021 instead of 01-02-2021 and consequently the last date mentioned in the circular should also be read as 31-03-2021 and thus, the pending applications between 01-02-2021 to 31-03-2021 and as on 31-03-2021 should be deemed as pending applications for purposes of consideration by Interim Board-Court cannot substitute its opinion to abolition of Settlement Commission. [S. 245A, 245C (5), 245D(11), Art. 226]

Matrix Publicities and Media India (P.) Ltd(2024) 296 Taxman 85 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 237 : Refunds-Interest on refunds—Public money-Technical issues at the Centralized Processing Center (CPC)-The High Court reprimanded the Department, stating that the interest is payable in law until the date of refund, and the Department failed to realise that it is the public money used to pay interest, which is a burden on the exchequer. A copy of the Order was asked to be sent to the Honourable Prime minster, The Hon’ble Finance Minister GOI, The Hon’ble Law Minister, the Central Board of Direct Taxes and to the Attorney General for India for information and necessary action.[S. 244A, Art. 226]

CIT v. I.T.C. Ltd. (2015) 64 taxmann.com 486 / (2024) 461 ITR 449 (Cal)(HC) Editorial : CIT v. I.T.C.Ltd (2024) 461 ITR 446 (SC), order of High Court is set aside and remanded for fresh disposal on merits.

S. 234A : Interest-Default in furnishing return of income-Self assessment tax paid was to be deducted from the tax payable as per the assessment order for the purposes of calculating interest payable-No substantial question of law.[S. 140A, 260A]

Tata Steel Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2023) 156 taxmann.com 104/(2024) 460 ITR 595 (Delhi HC)]

S. 221 : Collection and recovery-Penalty-Tax in default-Dues payable to creditors for periods preceding the date of approval of the Resolution Plan can only be paid as per terms contained therein and therefore, demand recovery notices and consequent orders issued for preceding period are unsustainable in law and unenforceable. [143(3), 147, 148, 153A, 221(1), 271(1)(c), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016., S. 31, 238, Art. 226]

G. K. Reddy v. Dy. CIT (No. 2) (2024) 461 ITR 104 (Mad)(HC) Editorial: Refer, G. K. Reddy v. DCIT (2023) 461 ITR 42/ 156 taxmann.com 729 (Mad)(HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Stay–Attachment of bank accounts-Attachment of bank accounts-Attachment of pension account to recover the outstanding dues-not justified.

G. K. Reddy v. DCIT (No. 1) (2023) 461 ITR 42/ 156 taxmann.com 729 (Mad)(HC) Editorial: Refer G. K. Reddy v. Dy. CIT (No. 2) [2024] 461 ITR 104 (Mad)(HC)

S. 220: Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Stay-Attachment of bank accounts–The Revenue was directed to lift attachment so far as pension of the assessee concern and he was allowed to withdraw pension-Embargo on the petitioner from withdrawing any other amounts deposited in the attached account was continued with direction to appellate commissioner to dispose appeals within 3 months from the date of the High Court’s order.[Art. 226]