Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Karan Kothari Jewellers (P.) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal (2023) 292 Taxman 177 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 277A : Offences and prosecutions-Falsification of books-or documents etc.-Principal Director of Income-tax (Inv.) filed a complaint against assessee for offences under sections 277A and 278B-Warrant of arrest was issued against assessee-A senior officer of income-tax department was complainant, there would be no requirement of compliance with section 202 of CrPC-Assessee is an artificial person and not a natural person, warrant of arrest could not be issued. [S. 278B, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S. 202, 305]

Sharmila Vikram Mahurkar v. ACIT (2023) 292 Taxman 461 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Violation of principle of natural justice-Show-cause notice issued gave less than 24 hours to assessee to appear-Shorter period of less than 24 hours could be termed as a pure and simple breach of principle of natural justice-Penalty order was quashed and set aside. [S. 274, Art. 226]

CIT v. C. Aryama Sundaram (2023) 292 Taxman 71 (SC) Editorial : C. Aryama Sundaram v. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 1/ 258 Taxman 10 (Mad)(HC)

S. 268A : Appeal-Instructions-Circulars-Monetary limits-Capital gains-Profit on sale of property used for residence-SLP of revenue is dismissed, since tax amount involved in instant case was less than Rs. 2 crores.[S. 54(1)]

PCIT v. Gunja Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. (2023) 292 Taxman 46 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Co-operative societies-Interest on deposits-Income from other sources-PCIT has not carried out any inquiry on his own-Order of Tribunal quashing the revision order is affirmed. [S. 56, 80P(2)(i)]

PCIT v. Rachana Todi (Smt.) (2023) 292 Taxman 30 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-Land used for agricultural purposes-Failure to record satisfaction-Order of Tribunal quashing the revision order is affirmed. [S. 45, 54B]

Kamal Nayan Singh v. DY. CIT (2023) 292 Taxman 289 (Jharkhand)(HC)

S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Limitation-Rectification was filed much prior to amendment made in section 254(2) which came into effect from 1-6-2016-Within a period of four years from date of actual receipt of judgment-Law prevailing on date of filing of miscellaneous application to be applied-Order of Tribunal is set aside.

Radheshyam Patel v. UOI (2023) 292 Taxman 146 (MP)(HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Duties-Condonation of delay-Dismissal of appeal for non attendance by the assessee-Order of dismissal was set aside-Matter was to be remanded back to Tribunal to decide issue on merits. [S. 254(2)]

Madras Bar Association v. UOI (2023) 292 Taxman 467 (SC)

S. 252A : Qualifications, terms and conditions of service of President, Vice-President and Members-Retirement-Applicant had offered her candidature for appointment as member of Tribunal, in pursuance of Circular of 2013-Right of applicant to appointment having been crystallized before 2017 Rules, appointment of applicant would be governed by position as it existed prior to 2017 Rules-Her tenure would be extended until she attained age of 62 years. [Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Members (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1963, R. 3, 11.

Shiv Shipping and Logistics v. ITSC (2023) 292 Taxman 390 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 234A : Interest-Default in furnishing return of income-Settlement Commission-Allowed credit of pre-paid taxes-Interest under section 234B(2A) can be levied only on balance tax payable-Short paid for period after due date of filing return on which the return was filed. [S. 132, 133A, 234B(2A), 245C 245D(4), Art. 226]

Neo Structo Construction (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2023) 292 Taxman 162/ 224 DTR 72 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Stay-Pendency of appeal before Commissioner (Appeals)-65 percent of total demand was adjusted-Application for releasing beyond 20 percent of demand raised by the Assessing Officer was rejected-Revenue was to be directed to refund amount adjusted beyond 20 per cent of demand raised.[Art. 226]