Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. v. PCIT (2023)454 ITR 436/ 293 Taxman 605 (SC) Editorial: Decision of Delhi High Court in BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. v. PCIT(2017) 399 ITR 228 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Failure to claim larger claim of depreciation-SLP of the assessee is dismissed-Matter remanded to the Assessing Officer. [S. 32, 40A(2), 142(2A) Art. 136]

CIT v. Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd. (2023)454 ITR 811/333 CTR 570 (SC) Editorial: CIT v. Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd(Bom)(HC) (ITA (L) No. 2115 of 2007 dt. 7-5 2009 ), affirmed.

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limitation-Issues not covered in reassessment proceedings-Limitation to be reckoned from date of original assessment and not of reassessment. [S. 147, 148]

CIT (IT) v. Posco Engineering and Construction Co. (2023)454 ITR 201 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Territorial Jurisdiction-Delay of 130 days was condoned with liberty given to withdraw appeals-Leave granted to file appeals before High Court with jurisdiction. [S. 254(1)]

PCIT v. Subex Ltd. (2023)454 ITR 519/ 293 Taxman 679 (SC) Editorial: PCIT v. Subex Ltd(Karn)(HC) (ITA No.492 of 2016 dt 1-10-2021)

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-International transactions-Determination-Court can consider whether relevant guidelines under Act and Rules taken into consideration–Comparability of two companies-Selection of filters judiciously done and on basis of relevant material and evidence on record-Matter remanded to the High Court to take a fresh decision.[S. 92, 92A to 92CA, 92D, 92E and 92F, R.10B to 10E, Art. 136]

Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2023)454 ITR 121/ 293 Taxman 263 / 332 CTR 249 / 225 DTR 1 (SC) Editorial : Decisions of Karnataka High Courts in Indigra Exporters P. Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 396 (Karn)(HC). PCIT v. Kirloskar Toyata Textile Machnery P.Ltd (2019) 412 ITR 359 (Karn)(HC), PCIT v. E. Valuesrve SEZ (Gurgaon) P. Ltd (2019) 416 ITR 51 (Delhi)(HC) PCIT v. Mphass Ltd (2022) 446 ITR 361 (Karn )(HC), and PCIT v. Softbrands India (P) Ltd (2018) 406 ITR 513 (Karn) impliedly overruled. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd. v.ITO (Karn)(HC) (ITA. No. 10 of 2011 dt 9-7-2018)(2010) 6 ITR 81 (Trib), Remanded.

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-International transactions-Determination-Court can consider whether relevant guidelines under Act and Rules taken into consideration–Comparability of two companies-Selection of filters judiciously done and on basis of relevant material and evidence on record-Matter remanded to the High Court to take a fresh decision.[S. 92, 92A to 92CA, 92D, 92E and 92F, R.10B to 10E, Art. 136]

Sri Lakshmi Ammal Educational Trust v. ITSC(2023)454 ITR 804 (Mad)(HC)

S. 245D : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Entire tax on admitted additional income was paid-Short fall of tax was brought to Knowledge through report-Deposited the amount immediately-Sufficient Compliance-Application restored to Settlement Commission. [S. 132, 245C, 245D(2B), Art. 226]

PCIT (Central) v. UOI & ITSC (2023)454 ITR 696 / 224 DTR 441 /334 CTR 261 (All)(HC)

S. 245D : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases -Application-Full and true disclosure of undisclosed income-Revision of amount-Order of Settlement Commission based on revision is not valid-No power to waive interest-High Court can set aside order of Settlement Commission passed in excess of its statutory powers or in violation of principles of natural justice-High Court also directed the Principal Secretary Government of UP and The Vice Chancellor of King George Medical University, Lucknow to take appropriate action against the individual Doctors who are employees of King Georges Medical University, who are found indulged in blatant private practice and making profits in private companies and also being on their boards as directors [S. 132(4),234A, 234B, 234C, 245C, 245D(4), 245D(6B), 245I, Art. 226]

Jagdish Transport Corporation and Ors v. UOI (ITSC) (2023)454 ITR 264 / 293 Taxman 417/ 332 CTR 601/ 225 DTR 265 (SC) Editorial : Jagdish Transport Corporation and Ors v. UOI (ITSC) (All)(HC) (WP No. 4858 of 2008 dt. 29-3 2017)

S. 245D : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-observation-It was not practicable to examine records and arrive at proper Settlement-Directing Authorities to adjudicate and pass orders on other aspects not before it-Writ petition dismissed-Order passed by Settlement Commission a nullity-Orders Of High Court, Assessing Officer, and Settlement Commission set aside and matter remanded to Interim Board for Settlement. [S. 132, 153A, 245AA, 245C(1), 245D(4), 245F(4), 245HA, Art. 136, 226]

Haji Ramzan And Sons v. CIT (2023)454 ITR 440/ 293 Taxman 607 (SC) Editorial: Decision in, Haji Ramzan And Sons v. CIT (2017) 10 ITR-OL 1 (All)(HC), affirmed.

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Interest on arrears of tax-Waiver-Refusal to waive interest-SLP is dismissed. [S. 220(2A), Art. 136]

Vedanta Limited v. Dy. CIT (IT)(2023)454 ITR 545/333 CTR 628 (Mad)(HC)

S. 201 : Deduction at source-Failure to deduct or pay-Non-Residents-Assessee-in-default”-Limitation-No statutory period of limitation-Orders must be passed within reasonable time-Limitation prescribed for residents is applicable to payments to non-residents-The extended period of limitation of seven years would be available for passing orders under section 201(1) of the Act deeming a person to be an “assessee-in-default” for failure to deduct taxes in respect of payments to residents is also applicable to non-residents. [S. 201(1), 201(3), Art. 226]