Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Hicons Developers v. DCIT [2025] 171 taxmann.com 341 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Duties-Penalty-Concealment-Violation of principles of natural justice-Assessee not given opportunity to argue penalty appeal-Matter remanded to Tribunal for fresh hearing-Directed to deposit cost of Rs.150,000 in the name of KEM Hospital [S. 260A, 271 (1)(c)]

PCIT (Central) v. ITSC [2025] 176 taxmann.com 931 (Bom)(HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue dismissed for failure to explain delay of 337 days, PCIT v. Jagdish Bhagwandas Ahuja ([2025] 177 taxmann.com 452 (SC)

S. 245D: Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Procedure-Application-Full and true disclosure-When an application is made before ITSC and ITSC is satisfied that there has been a full and true disclosure, the department cannot raise any grievance against its order.[S. 245C, 245D(4), Art. 2226 ]

Kishore Mohanlal Dingra v. ACIT [2025] 174 taxmann.com 1024 /[2026] 489 ITR 602 ((Bom) (HC)

S. 245 : Refunds-Set off of refunds against tax remaining payable-Adjustment against outstanding demand-20 per cent of demand already paid-Adjustment not justified.[Art. 226]

Vidya R Iyer v. DCIT [2025] 173 taxmann.com 542 (Bom) (HC)

S. 244A: Refunds-Interest on refunds-Refund granted without interest-Interest directed to be credited.[Art. 226]

Nirmalkumar Mulchand Puruswani v. ITO [2025] 173 taxmann.com 270 (Bom) (HC).

S. 243: Refunds-Interest on delayed refunds-Delay in granting refund-Strictures-Accountability-Interest-Responsibility to be fixed on defaulting officials-Financial liability arising from such delay was to be recovered from the officials responsible for the inaction so as to ensure accountability and prevent negligence in administrative functions. [Art. 14, 265, 300A]

Wadhwa Group Holding (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2025] 175 taxmann.com 531 (Bom) (HC)

S.241: Refunds-Power to withhold in certain cases-Approval of higher authorities-Communication to assessee-Opportunity to challenge.[Art. 226]

Supremus Lower Parel Premises (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT [2025] 178 taxmann.com 56 (Bom)(HC)

S. 220: Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Stay of demand-Unconditional stay-Reassessment-Assessee had a strong prima facie case and unconditional stay was warranted, and the order granting stay subject to payment of 20 per cent of disputed demand was set aside. [S. 45, Art. 226]

Promod India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2025] 173 taxmann.com 622 (Bom) (HC)

S. 220: Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Stay-Requirement of payment of 20 per cent of demand as a pre-condition for stay was held to be appropriate, and orders were not interfered with. [Art. 226]

Mahesh Mathuradass Ganatra v. CPC [2025] 175 taxmann.com 234 (Bom) (HC)

S. 220: Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Stay of demand-Pendency of appeal before CIT(A)-Payment of 20 per cent of demand-Adjustment of subsequent refund-Not justified.[S. 245, 250(6A),Art. 226]

D G Exports v. ACIT [2025] 172 taxmann.com 647 (Bom) (HC)

S. 220: Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Recovery of tax-Pendency of appeal-Adjustment of refund-Payment of 15 per cent of demand-Further payment of 5 per cent-Balance refund to be released.[S. 245,246A, 250(6A) Art. 226]