Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Srinivasan Jayaprakasam v. CBDT (2025) 171 taxmann.com 101 /473 ITR 245 (Mad)(HC)

Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 (2024) 467 ITR 1 (St)(63)
S. 89 : Definitions-Appellant-Benefit of Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 extended to those assesses in whose case the time for filing appeal has not expired as on 22 July 2024.[S.89(1)(a)) DTVSV Act, 2020, S. 2(1)(a), Art. 226]

Sanjay Bhandari v. ITO (2025) 473 ITR 294 (Delhi) (HC)

Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015.

S. 51: Punishment for willful attempt to evade tax-Failure to file return-Search-Prosecution not dependent on completion of assessment-Summing order is upheld-Alternative remedy-Writ petition is dismissed, [S.2(12), 16, 50, 51, Income-Tax Act 1961, S. 131(IA), 132, 139]

K. N. Subramaniam v. PCIT (2025) 473 ITR 439 (Mad.) (HC)

S. 281 : Certain transfers to be void-Writ-Recovery of tax-Attachment of property-Transfer of property-Validity-Assessee denying sale of attached property to petitioner-Transfer void ab initio-Tax Recovery Officer not required to declare sale as invalid-Petitioner given liberty to file Civil suit in Civil Court. [S. 220(6),, Sch II R.11 Art. 226]

L. T. Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. v. CCIT (Bom) (HC)(UR)

S. 279 : Offences and prosecutions-Sanction-Chief Commissioner-Commissioner-Compounding of offence-Compounding application could not have been rejected on delay alone-Limitation-CBDT guidelines dated 16 November 2022.[S. 279(2), Art.226]

Vinubhai Mohanlal Dobaria v. Chief CIT [2017] 247 Taxman 253 / (2025) 473 ITR 387 (Guj.) (HC) Editorial : Decision of High Court is reversed, Vinubhai Mohanlal Dobaria v. Chief CIT (2025) 473 ITR 394 (SC)

S. 279 : Offences and prosecutions-Sanction-Chief Commissioner-Commissioner-Certain categories of offences not to be compounded other than first offence-Wilful failure to file returns in due time-“First offence” as defined in Guidelines-Failure to file return before due date for assessment year 2013-2014 despite issue of notice for not filing in time for assessment year 2011-2012-Offence committed by assessee not first offence-Rejection of application in consonance with Guidelines; Guidelines for Compounding of Offences under Direct Tax Laws, 2008 (2015) 371 ITR 7 (St). [S. 139, 276CC279(2), Art. 226]

Hansa Metallics Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2025) 472 ITR 737 (P&H) (HC)

S. 276: Offences and prosecutions-Wilful attempt to evade tax-Delay in payment of tax does not amount to evasion of tax-Prosecution is not valid.[S. 276(2)]

CIT (TDS) v. Adma Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (2025) 473 ITR 36/302 Taxman 106 / 342 CTR 643 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 275: : Penalty-Bar of limitation-Failure to deduct tax at source-Survey-Notice for penalty after five years-The penalty order is barred by limitation if issued after the statutory time frame of six months from the end of the month in which penalty proceedings were initiated-Notice and penalty is unsustainable. [S. 260A, 271C, 272A(2)(c) (k), 275(1)(c)]

CIT (TDS) v. Adma Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (2025) 473 ITR 36 /302 Taxman 106 / 342 CTR 643 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 271C : Penalty-Failure to deduct at source-Curable defects-The penalty order for failure to deduct tax at source (TDS) is valid even if issued in the old name of the company after a name change, if the entity remains the same. [S. 260A, 272A(c) (k) 292B]

K. Krishnamurthy v. Dy. CIT (2025) 473 ITR 553 (Karn)(HC) Editorial : K. Krishnamurthy v. Dy. CIT (2025) 473 ITR 557 (SC), partly confirmed.

S. 271AAA: Penalty-Search initiated on or after 1st June, 2007-Undisclosed income-Disclosure in the course of search-Belated payment of tax and interest-Fulfilment of all three conditions stipulated under subsection (2) mandatory-Levy of penalty is justified. [S. 132 (4), 260A]

M.R. Apparels (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2024) 168 taxmann.com 197 / (2025) 472 ITR 793 (Delhi) (HC) Editorial : SLP dismissed,.R. Apparels (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2025) 472 ITR 799 (SC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-The part consideration on account of immovable property sold was not received as cheques dishonoured-The assessee did not offer Capital Gain to tax during the relevant assessment year-Pr. CIT found that the AO did not examine details regarding dishonour of cheques-Assessment Order to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue-Order of Tribunal is affirmed-S. 263, Explanation 2(a). [S. 45, 260A]