Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


G.R. Infraprojects Ltd. v. ACIT (2024) 297 Taxman 231/336 CTR 249 /470 ITR 382(Raj.)(HC)

S. 270A:Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income-Application filed by assessee under section 270AA seeking immunity from imposition of penalty had not been decided by Assessing Officer within prescribed time, impugned penalty order as well as demand notice issued under section 156 were to be set aside. [S.155(18), 156,270AA,Art. 226]

CIT (Central) v. Shyam Biri Works (2024) 297 Taxman 140 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Shyam Biri Works (2015) 57 taxmann.com 157 /231 Taxman 543/ 374 ITR 68 (All)(HC)

S. 268A : Appeal-Instructions-Monetary limits-Less than 10 lakhs-Applicable to pending appeals-SLP of Revenue is dismissed. [S. 119, 260A, Art.136 [

Dun & Bradstreet Technologies & Data Services (P.) Ltd v. PCIT (2024) 297 Taxman 323 / 471 ITR 234(Mad)(HC)

S. 264 : Commissioner-Revision of other orders-concessional rate of tax on dividend distributed to its foreign holding company-Not justified in rejecting revision application on ground that assessee could have filed a revised return or an appeal under section 248-DTAA-India-Mauritius-Matter remanded to decide on merit. [S. 9(1)(i), 90, 139(5), 195, 248, art. 10(2),Art.226]

Dun & Bradstreet Technologies & Data Services (P.) Ltd v.PCIT (2024) 297 Taxman 323 (Mad)(HC)

S. 264 : Commissioner-Revision of other orders-concessional rate of tax on dividend distributed to its foreign holding company-Not justified in rejecting revision application on ground that assessee could have filed a revised return or an appeal under section 248-DTAA-India-Mauritius-Matter remanded to decide on merit. [S. 9(1)(i), 90, 139(5), 195, 248, art. 10(2),Art.226]

Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. UOI (2024) 297 Taxman 412 /464 ITR 236 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 264 : Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Fringe benefit tax-Included in the return as abundant caution-CIT(A) held that the amount included in the return is not chargeable to tax-Revision application is filed after 5-6 years-Application for condonation of application is rejected-Allowing the petition the Court held that since it took a long time for Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose assessee’s appeal, Commissioner should have condoned delay and decided matter on merits.[S. 115WB, 143(1), 250, Art. 226]

PCIT v. BT Global Communications India (P.) Ltd. (2024) 297 Taxman 328/337 CTR 179 /466 ITR 714(Delhi)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Industrial undertakings-Infrastructure development-Order of Tribunal quashing the revision order and on merit affirmed by High Court. [80IA(4)(ii), 260A]

PCIT v. Trojan Developers (P.) Ltd. (2024) 297 Taxman 177 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Shares at premium-Confirmation was filed-Assessing Officer passed the order after verification-Order of Tribunal quashing the revision is affirmed. [S. 56(2) (viib), 143(3), 260A]

PCIT v. National Dairy Development Board (2024) 297 Taxman 306 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-Depreciable assets-Block of assets-Claim of set off of brought forward long term capital loss against short term capital gain under section 50-Plausible view-Order of Tribunal is affirmed. [S. 2(11), 32,72,143(3), 260A]

PCIT v. R. K. Jain Infra Projects (P.) Ltd. (2024) 297 Taxman 369 /464 ITR 584 (SC) Editorial: PCIT v. R. K. Jain Infra Projects (P.) Ltd(2023) 293 Taxman 465 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Business expenditure-Specific query was raised in the original assessment proceedings-Mere failure to issue notice under section 133(6) did not warrant exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act-Order of Tribunal is affirmed-SLP of Revenue is dismissed. [S. 37(1), 133(6), 143(3), Art. 136]

CIT (IT) v. Bharti Airtel Ltd. (2024) 297 Taxman 371/463 ITR 63 /337 CTR 1 (SC) Editorial : CIT (IT) v. Bharti Airtel Ltd (2024) 159 taxmann.com 315 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Delay 4 years and 100 days-Failed to give any adequate or sufficient reasons-Appeal was dismissed as time barred-SLP of Revenue is dismissed. [Art. 136]