Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Secundrabad Club etc. v. CIT (2023) 457 ITR 263 / 295 Taxman 123/ 334 CTR 105 (SC) Editorial: Secundrabad Club Ltd (2012) 340 ITR 121 (AP)(HC), Madras Gymkhan Club v. Dy.CIT (2010) 328 ITR 348 (Mad)(HC), Madras Cricket Club v.Dy.CIT (2011) 334 ITR 238 (Mad)(HC), Coimbatore Cosmopoltion Club v. ACIT (2010) 229 CTR 414 (Mad)(HC), affirmed.

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Mutuality-Clubs-Interest eraned on deposits-Incomeearned by clubs through its assets and resources, from persons who are not members of clubs-Income is not covered under principle of mutuality and would be liable to be taxed under provisions of Income-tax Act-Precedent-It is a settled position of law that only the ratio decidendi of a judgment is binding as a precedent. [S. 2(24), 56, Art. 141]

Pragati Pre Fab India (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2023) 295 Taxman 269 /(2024) 460 ITR 387/ 337 CTR 862 (Bom.)(HC)/Editorial : SLP of Revenue is dismissed , PCIT v. Pragati Pre Fab India Pvt. Ltd. (2024)467 ITR 167 300 Taxman 358 (SC)

Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 ( 2020) 422 ITR 121 ( St)

S. 9 : Act not to apply in certain cases – Tax arrear – Prosecution has been instituted on or before the date of filing of declaration- Prosecution has to be in respect of tax arrear which is relatable to an assessment year –Directed the authorities to decide the declation in conformity with the DTVSV Act. [ S. 2(1)(o ), S. 276C(2)), 278B, Art. 226 ]

PCIT (Central) v. Macrotech Developers Ltd. (2023) 295 Taxman 218/ 335 CTR 990/2024) 460 ITR 1 (SC) Editorial : Macrotech Developers Ltd. (2021 ) 434 ITR 131/ 280 Taxman 137 ( Bom)( HC)

Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 ( 2020) 422 ITR 121 ( St)

S. 9 : Act not to apply in certain cases – Tax arrear – Prosecution has been instituted on or before the date of filing of declaration- Wilful attempt to evade tax -Tax deduction at source – Prosecution – Q. 73 of CBDT Circular 21 of 2020 dated 4/12/2020 (2020) 429 ITR 1 (St) would stand set aside and quashed – SLP of Revenue dismissed . [ S. 2(1)(o ), 9(a)(ii) , Art, 14, Art, 226 ]

Ramesh Pejathaya v. CBDT(2023) 295 Taxman 426/ (2024) 337 CTR 99 (Mad.)(HC)

Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 ( 2020) 422 ITR 121 ( St)

S. 3 : Amount payable by the declarant -Time and manner of payment- Amount recovered attaching the bank account – Authorities concerned directed to refund excess amount recovered and accept the declaration as per the law . .[ S. 5, Art. 226 ]

Jai Shankar Singh v. UOI (2023)455 ITR 562 (All)(HC)

S. 276CC : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to furnish return of income-Return filed after due date but before notice issued-Payment of tax with interest-In due time-”Or” and “And”-Word “Or” is normally disjunctive and “And” is normally conjunctive-Application to quash the proceedings is dismissed. [S.139(1) 139(4),234A, 278E, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, S.482]

Mehala Machines India Ltd. v. ITO (2023)455 ITR 20/151 taxmann.com 404 (Mad) (HC)

S. 276B : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to pay to the credit tax deducted at source-Company-Directors-Separate notice to directors is not necessary-Directors could be as principal officer-Could be agitated before Trail court. [S. 2(35), 278B]

Bharathiraja hospitals and research centre Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2023)455 ITR 30 /152 taxmann.com 300 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 276B : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to pay to the credit tax deducted at source-Not Principal officers of the company-More than 70 years of age-Writ petition to quash the proceedings was rejected.[S.2(35), 278B]

PCIT v. Jai Maa Jagdamba Flour Pvt. Ltd. (2023)455 ITR 74/ 293 Taxman 102/ 333 CTR 317/ 226 DTR 425 (Jharkhand)(HC)

S. 271AAB : Penalty-Search initiated on or after Ist day of July 2012-No incriminating document seized during search-Penalty Could be imposed only under Section 271AAB and not under section 271(1)(c). [S. 132, 153A, 271(1)(c)]

Ena Chaudhuri v. ACIT (2023) 455 ITR 284 / 227 DTR 74 /148 taxmann.com 100 (Cal)(HC)

S. 264 : Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Bonafide mistake-Commissioner is not justified in rejecting the application on the ground that assessee failed to file revised return without considering the merits of the case-Directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order. [S. 10(38), 139(5), Art. 226, 265]

PCIT v. Sinhotia Metals and Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (2023)455 ITR 736(Cal)(HC)

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Order set aside by the Tribunal-Submissions not before the Tribunal-Liberty granted to the Department to approach tribunal for clarification or rectification of order. [S. 254(2), 263]