Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


CIT v. Gurdaspur Co-Operative Sugar Mills Ltd. (2024)461 ITR 208 /297 Taxman 384 (SC) Editorial: CIT v. Gurdaspur Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd (2013) 354 ITR 27 / 216 Taxman 186 (Mag.) (P&H)(HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Furnishing inaccurate particulars of income- Subsidy-Capital or revenue-Debatable issue-Order of High Court deleting the penalty is affirmed-SLP of Revenue is dismissed. [Art. 136]

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

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
Set-off of loss-Derivative loss-Business income-Documents placed before tribunal not furnished before Principal Commissioner- Non-speaking order-Matter remanded to PCIT. [S.73(1), 254(1), 260A]

M. L. Chains v. PCIT [2024] 461 ITR 457 (All)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Revision-No finding that assessment order was prejudicial to revenue-Not given adequate opportunity to the assessee to be heard-Revision order is quashed-Revenue is directed to pay the cost of Rs.10000 which shall be deposited with Allahabad Legal Service committee. [Art. 226]

PCIT v. Wig Investment [2024] 461 ITR 117 (Delhi HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains or business income-Investment in stock in trade-Deemed dividend-Capital contribution by company-Not loan or advance-Commercial transaction-Order of Tribunal quashing the revision is affirmed.[S. 2(22)(e), 28(i), 45]

Rajan Setia v. CIT [2024] 461 ITR 287 /162 taxmann.com 73 (P&H HC)

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Delay in filing appeal of 3270 days-Time required to clear certain objections & some time was required to arrange certain documents-Appeal dismissed.[S.153A]

CIT v. I. T. C. Ltd. (2024)461 ITR 446 /297 Taxman 533 /336 TR 745 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. I.T.C. Ltd (2015) 64 taxmann.com 486/446 ITR 449 (Cal)(HC), set aside.

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Substantial question of law- Appeal admitted by Court formulating ten questions of law- At time of final hearing Court dismissing appeal holding no question of law arises- Order of High Court set aside and matter remanded for disposal b Court on merits. [Art. 136]

PCIT v. Shantinath Detergents (P.) Ltd. [2024] 461 ITR 302 (Cal)(HC)

S. 246A : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Appealable orders-S. 246A : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Appealable orders-Sales tax subsidy-Shown taxable in the return-CIT(A) is justified admitting the additional ground-Order of Tribunal is affirmed.[S.4, 139(5), 254((1)]

Siva Industries And Holdings Ltd. v Asst. CIT (2024)461 ITR 142/297 Taxman 59 (SC) Editorial : Refer, Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2023 ) 153 taxmann.com 354/ (2024) 461 ITR 133 (Mad)(HC)

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Delay of 2139 days-Lacked bona fides- Order of High Court refusing to condonation of delay-SLP dismissed. [Art. 136]

Mahesh Gupta v. ITSC [2024] 461 ITR 267 (Bom HC)

S. 245D : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Procedure-Assessee paid taxes on own calculations-Compliance of the provisions of section 245D (2D)-No abatement-Matter remanded to Interim Board. [S. 245AA 245C,245D(2D), 245HA(1)(ii), Art.226]

Jain Metal Rolling Mills v. UOI (2023) 156 taxmann.com 513 /(2024) 461 ITR 423 (Mad)(HC)/Editorial : SLP of Revenue is dismissed , UOI v. Velammal Chennai Educational Trust (2024)467 ITR 169/1 67 taxmann.com 372/ 301 Taxman 319 (SC)

S. 245C : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Pending cases-Constitution validity of an amendment to Section 245A discontinuing operation Settlement Commission w.e.f. 01-02-2021 also challenged the validity of Circular / Order F.No. 299/22/2021-DIR(INV.III) dtd. 28-09-2021-Last date mentioned in circular should read as 31-3-2021-Orders rejecting applications on ground that no case pending as on 31-1-20021 set a side-Applications to be deemed pending for consideration by Interim Board-Abolition of Settlement Commission-Jurisdiction of court-Right to seek resolution through Settlement Commission conferred by statute-Within policy realm of State to take away remedy or benevolence given-Court cannot substitute its opinion to abolition of Settlement Commission. [S. 245A, 245D, 245M, Art. 226]