Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Binod Pattanayak v. UOI (2025) 303 Taxman 359 (Orissa)(HC)

S. 276B : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to pay to the credit tax deducted at source-Salary-Compounding application-If application is moved before the Court below, the same shall be considered on its merit without being influenced by the observation of this Court in the present order-Circular F. No. 285/08/2014-IT(INV. V)/163, dated 17-10-2024-[S. 192, 278AA, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S. 320]

Pr. CIT v. K. Umesh Shetty (2025) 303 Taxman 318/343 CTR 359 / 246 DTR 281 (Karn)(HC)

S. 275 : Penalty-Bar of limitation-Reference made by Assessing Officer to Additional Commissioner was to be treated as triggering point for initiation of penalty proceedings-Show cause notice was issued only on 10-11-2017 proposing levy of penalty and penalty order was made on 22-2-2018-Proceedings were beyond period of limitation-Order of Tribunal is affirmed. [S. 143(3), 260A, 269SS, 271D, 275(1)(c)]

Inox Wind Ltd. v. Assessment Unit, ITD (2025) 303 Taxman 125 (HP)(HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Natural justice-Due process-Opportunity of hearing-Less than 24 hours was granted to produce document-Penalty order is quashed and set aside-Matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer. [Art. 226]

Pr. CIT v. Gragerious Projects (P.) Ltd. (2025) 303 Taxman 14 / 475 ITR 546 (Delhi)(HC)/PCIT v. Sara Sae Pvt Ltd (2025) 303 Taxman 14 / 475 ITR 546 (Delhi)(HC) PCIT v. Virtual Software and Training Pvt Ltd ( 2025) 303 Taxman 14 / 475 ITR 546 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Failure to specify the charge-Order of Tribunal quashing the penalty is affirmed. [S. 260A, 274(1)]

Ramesh Madhukar Deole v. Pr. CIT (2025) 303 Taxman 53 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 264 : Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Ex parte order-Mistake of chartered Accountant-Order of commissioner rejecting the application is quashed and set aside and remanded to Commissioner to be decided in accordance with law. [S. 54F, 142(1), Art. 226]

Cochin International Airport Ltd. v. ACIT (2025) 303 Taxman 615 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Bad debt-Provision for doubtful debts-Book profit-Assessing Officer did not show any application of mind and mechanically accepted statement of assessee-Principal Commissioner was justified in exercising his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. [S. 36(1)(vii), 115JB]

M.R. Apparels (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2025) 303 Taxman 328 (SC) Editorial : M.R. Apparels (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT(2024) 168 taxmann.com 197 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-Assessment order was passed without making enquiry-In terms of clause (a) of Explanation 2 to section 263, assessment order was deemed to be erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to interests of revenue-SLP filed by assessee against order of High Court was dismissed.[S. 45,263, Explanation 2, Art. 136]

Board of Control for Cricket in India v. ACIT (2025) 303 Taxman 587 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Registration-Trust or institution-Observation of Tribunal that Director (E)’s view in that communication/order was correct-On appeal the Court held that Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in virtually upholding said communication/order on its merits-Observation of the Tribunal was directed to be ignored and the statutory authorities are directed to decide as prescribed by the law. [S. 12A,12AB, 253, 260A, Art.226]

Thomas Philip v. Interim Board for Settlement-II (2025) 303 Taxman 202 (Ker.)(HC) Editorial : Thomas Philip v. Interim Board for Settlement-II (W.P (C) No. 1175 of 2024 dt. 21-2-2024

S. 245D : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Interim Board for settlement (IBS)-Deemed dividend-Undisclosed income-Remuneration earned-[S.2(22)(3) 132, 153A, 245C, 245D(4), Art. 226]

PrCIT (Central) v. Navinchandra Dalpatlal Mehta (2025) 303 Taxman 551 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 245D : Settlement Commission-Search-Additional income-Finding of fact arrived at by Settlement Commission and in absence of any evidence found contrary to disclosure made, order passed by Settlement Commission was just and proper and required no interference. Writ petition of revenue was dismissed. [S. 132, 153A, 245C(1), 245D, Art. 226]