Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Laxmi Meena v. UOI [2024] 464 ITR 208 (Raj)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment – Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice – Prima facie material to indicate escapement of income from assessment — Objection of assessee considered – Order and notice is valid .[ S. 148A(b), 148A(d), 148 , Art. 226 ]

Rishi Ganga Power Corporation Ltd v. ACIT [2024] 464 ITR 133 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 143(3): Assessment – Insolvency of Assessee — Claims to Interim Resolution Professional include claims not yet adjudicated — Insolvency petition during pendency of assessment proceedings — Revenue aware of petition and its approval — No claim before Interim Resolution Professional — Order of assessment and demand is not valid . [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 , S. 31 , The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, Art. 226 ]

Om Vision Infraspace Private Limited v. ITO ( Guj)( HC) www.itatonline.org

S. 250 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Stay of recovery – Pendency of appeal before CIT((A) for more than four years – As on 26 -9 -2024 , 5, 80, 188 appeals are pending – Revenue is not able to resolve the appeals by classifying the Appeals as per the issues concerning , the recurring issues, covered issues, etc- The Court held that no recovery should be made from the petitioners of any outstanding dues from the petitioners whose Appeals are pending during pendency of petitions . [ S.220, 226 , Art . 226 ]

Monica Parmanand Mirchndani v .ITO ( Mum)( Trib) www.itatonline .org

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax -Income – Capital or revenue – Member of Society – Hardship compensation amount received from builder is capital receipt – Not taxable as income from other sources .[ S.2(24), 56 ]

Chandrakala Kasani v. PCIT (2024) 464 ITR 119 (Telangana)(HC)

S. 3: Amount payable by declarant-Seventy five per cent. of amount determined under scheme paid-Slight delay in paying balance due to circumstances beyond control-Delay is condoned-Direction issued to the respondent to immediately take necessary steps for issuance of form 5 under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. [S. 4,5, Art. 226]

Digvendra Pratap Singh v. UOI (2024) 464 ITR 398// 296 Taxman 460 / 338 CTR 849 / 237 DTR 591 (All)(HC)

Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020,
S. 2(1): Legacy Dispute Resolution-Deposit of tax arrears-Dropping of cheque in the drop box-Delay of three days in delay of deposit of cheque due to circumstances beyond control. [ITAct, 119, S. 3, 4, Art. 226]]

Jay shree v. CBDT (2024) 464 ITR 81 (Mad)(HC)

S. 279 : Offences and prosecutions-Sanction-Chief Commissioner-Commissioner-Compounding of offences-Application-Limitation-Application can be filed either before or subsequent to launching of prosecution-Circular issued by Central Board Of Direct Taxes stipulating limitation period of 12 months-Contrary to legislative intent of provision-Relevant clause of Circular struck down-Matter remitted to decide application on the merits. [S. 119(1), 279(2), Art.226]

PCIT. v. VPR Mining Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd(2024) 464 ITR 586 (SC) Editorial : VPR Mining Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI(2023)21 ITR-OL 491/ 2022 SCC OnLine TS 3438 (Telangana)(HC)

S. 276CC : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to furnish return of income-Eligibility to file declaration under scheme-Tax arrears-Not a tax arrear under VVSV Act, 2020-Rejection of application-Prosecution is not valid-SLP of Revenue is dismissed. [S. 139(1) 153A, Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, S. 2(1(o), Art.. 136 ]

Pramod R. Agrawal v. PCIT (2024) 464 ITR 367 (Bom)(HC)

S. 264: Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Rectification of mistake-Long term capital gains-Time-Limit-Sale of flat inherited-Indexed cost of improvement-Omission of claim of deduction of Indexed renovation expenses in return of income-Rectification application is rejected on the ground that new claim was not raised earlier-Claim was accepted in other co-owners-Matter remanded for de novo consideration. [S. 45, 48, 50(C)(2), 143(3), 154, Art. 226]c

Pankaj Kailash Agarwal v. ACIT [2024] 464 ITR 65 / 161 taxmann.com 383 (Bom)(HC)

S. 264 : Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Delay of two years-Pedantic-Genuine hardship cannot be restricted to severe financial crises is only unwarranted-The Authorities have to do substantial justice-Directed to condone the delay and decide the matter on merits-Rectification of mistake-Duty of Assessing Officer-Pendency of rectification application for six years-The Assessing Officer duty bound to pass order expeditiously-The Hon Court directed to place Copy of this order to the Chairman of CBDT, so that suitable actions are taken to comply with the directions given by this court. [S. 44AB, 80IC, 119(2)(b), 143(1), 154, Art. 226, Form No 10CCB]