Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Meera Pandey (Smt) v. UOI (2024)465 ITR 366 /164 taxmann.com 188 (All)(HC)

Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988
S. 24(1): Benami Transactions-Attachment of property-Satisfaction of initiating Officer that person in possession of property held benami may alienate property during period specified in notice-No material in possession of initiating officer, to show property held benami is likely to be sold-Attachment order is set aside. [S.2(8), 2(9), 24(3), Art. 226]

S. S. Hyderabad Biriyani Pvt. Ltd. v.Dy. CIT (Inv) (2024)465 ITR 391/ 160 taxmann.com 417 (Mad)(HC) S. Abdul Samd v. Dy. DIT (Inv) 2024)465 ITR 391/ 160 taxmann.com 417 (Mad)(HC)

S. 276 : Offences and prosecutions-Wilful attempt to evade tax-Under reporting of income-Search-Settlement Commission-Pending criminal prosecution is not brought to knowledge of Settlement Commission-Immunity against prosecution granted by Settlement Commission without knowledge of pending prosecution-Provisions of Section 245I is not applicable-Prosecution cannot be quashed. [S. 132, 245C, 245H(1), 245-I, 277, Art. 226]

Karan Jain v. UOI (2024)465 ITR 1/164 taxmann.com 1066/(2025) 342 CTR 207 (Gauhati) (HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Long term capital gain-Order not prejudicial to interests of Revenue-Revision is not sustainable.[S. 10(38), 45, 260A]

PCIT v. ITSC (2024)465 ITR 45 (Bom)(HC)

S. 245D : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Settlement Commission has wide power under Chapter XIX-A-High Court can interfere only if decision of Settlement Commission is not in accordance with provisions of Act or if it were based on bias, fraud and malice.[S. 245D(4), 245I, Art. 226]

CIT v. ITSC (2024)465 ITR 19/161 taxmann.com 495 (Bom)(HC)

S. 245D : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Settlement Commission has wide power under Chapter XIX-A-High Court can interfere only if decision of Settlement Commission is not in accordance with provisions of Act or if it were based on bias, fraud and malice.[S.80IB(10), 245D(4), 245I, 292C(i)(ii), Art. 226]

Mohanbhai Madhavjibhai Bharad v. PCIT (2024) 465 ITR 313/ 336 CTR 578 /158 taxmann.com 13 (Guj)(HC)

S. 244A : Refunds-Interest on refunds-Delay in application under circumstances beyond control of assessee-Delay is condoned-Entitled to interest on refund-Money held without authority-Directed to grant interest under section 244A. [S.194LA, Form No.16A, 26AS, R. 31(3), Art. 226]

CEAT Ltd. v CIT (2024)465 ITR 276 /159 taxmann.com 535/ 340 CTR 169 (Bom)(HC)

S. 244A : Refunds-Interest on refunds-Amounts paid as advance tax and tax deducted at source must be included-Interpretation of taxing statutes-Words must be given their natural meaning.[S. 143(1), 244A(1)(a)]

Treadsdirect Ltd. v. ACIT (No. 1) (2024)465 ITR 346 (Mad)(HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Stay-Pendency of appeal before CIT(A)-Stay granted subject to deposit of 20 Per Cent. of demand after considering merits of case is justified-Writ petition is dismissed.[S. 226,250, Art. 226]

Lionbridge Technologies LLC v. Dy. CIT (IT) (2024)465 ITR 454/ 338 CTR 775 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 197 : Deduction at source-Certificate for lower rate-Payment to Non-Resident-Reimbursement of cost-to-cost payment-Payment for authorisation to use licensed computer software-No transfer of copyright-Payment not royalty-Duty of Assessing Officer to examine whether income in question chargeable to tax Eligible assessee-Draft assessment order-Rejection of application for certificate of nil deduction of tax based on draft assessment order is not proper-Rejection order is set aside.[9(1)(vi), 144C, 195, Art. 226, R.28AA(2)]

ITO v. Thanjavur District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. UOI (2024)465 ITR 286/158 taxmann.com 490/336 CTR 513 (Mad)(HC) Madurai District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. UOI (2024)465 ITR 286/158 taxmann.com 490/336 CTR 513 (Mad)(HC)/Editorial : Decision of the single judge in Tiruneleveli District Central Co -Operative Bank Ltd v .JCIT (2020) 428 ITR 249 / 321 CTR 86/ 202 DTR 61 ( Mad)( HC) is reversed .

S. 194N : Payment of certain amounts in cash- Deduction of tax at source-Constitutional validity of provisions-No evidence that assessee was business correspondent-Liable to deduct tax on cash withdrawals-Constitutional validity upheld. [S.197, Art. 265]