Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


PCIT (Central) v. Macrotech Developers Ltd. (2023) 295 Taxman 218/ 335 CTR 990/2024) 460 ITR 1 (SC) Editorial : Macrotech Developers Ltd. (2021 ) 434 ITR 131/ 280 Taxman 137 ( Bom)( HC)

Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 ( 2020) 422 ITR 121 ( St)

S. 9 : Act not to apply in certain cases – Tax arrear – Prosecution has been instituted on or before the date of filing of declaration- Wilful attempt to evade tax -Tax deduction at source – Prosecution – Q. 73 of CBDT Circular 21 of 2020 dated 4/12/2020 (2020) 429 ITR 1 (St) would stand set aside and quashed – SLP of Revenue dismissed . [ S. 2(1)(o ), 9(a)(ii) , Art, 14, Art, 226 ]

Ramesh Pejathaya v. CBDT(2023) 295 Taxman 426/ (2024) 337 CTR 99 (Mad.)(HC)

Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 ( 2020) 422 ITR 121 ( St)

S. 3 : Amount payable by the declarant -Time and manner of payment- Amount recovered attaching the bank account – Authorities concerned directed to refund excess amount recovered and accept the declaration as per the law . .[ S. 5, Art. 226 ]

Jai Shankar Singh v. UOI (2023)455 ITR 562 (All)(HC)

S. 276CC : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to furnish return of income-Return filed after due date but before notice issued-Payment of tax with interest-In due time-”Or” and “And”-Word “Or” is normally disjunctive and “And” is normally conjunctive-Application to quash the proceedings is dismissed. [S.139(1) 139(4),234A, 278E, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, S.482]

Mehala Machines India Ltd. v. ITO (2023)455 ITR 20/151 taxmann.com 404 (Mad) (HC)

S. 276B : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to pay to the credit tax deducted at source-Company-Directors-Separate notice to directors is not necessary-Directors could be as principal officer-Could be agitated before Trail court. [S. 2(35), 278B]

Bharathiraja hospitals and research centre Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2023)455 ITR 30 /152 taxmann.com 300 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 276B : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to pay to the credit tax deducted at source-Not Principal officers of the company-More than 70 years of age-Writ petition to quash the proceedings was rejected.[S.2(35), 278B]

PCIT v. Jai Maa Jagdamba Flour Pvt. Ltd. (2023)455 ITR 74/ 293 Taxman 102/ 333 CTR 317/ 226 DTR 425 (Jharkhand)(HC)

S. 271AAB : Penalty-Search initiated on or after Ist day of July 2012-No incriminating document seized during search-Penalty Could be imposed only under Section 271AAB and not under section 271(1)(c). [S. 132, 153A, 271(1)(c)]

Ena Chaudhuri v. ACIT (2023) 455 ITR 284 / 227 DTR 74 /148 taxmann.com 100 (Cal)(HC)

S. 264 : Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Bonafide mistake-Commissioner is not justified in rejecting the application on the ground that assessee failed to file revised return without considering the merits of the case-Directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order. [S. 10(38), 139(5), Art. 226, 265]

PCIT v. Sinhotia Metals and Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (2023)455 ITR 736(Cal)(HC)

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Order set aside by the Tribunal-Submissions not before the Tribunal-Liberty granted to the Department to approach tribunal for clarification or rectification of order. [S. 254(2), 263]

Kausalya Agro Farms And Developers Pvt. Ltd. v Dy. CIT (2023)455 ITR 432/334 CTR 460 (Telangana)(HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Powers-No cross objections by the Department-Tribunal remanding of matter in entirety-Prejudicial to assessee-Tribunal is directed to limit its adjudication to issues raised by assesses.-Order of Tribunal is set aside. [S. 36(1)(iii) 147]

Venkat Rao Paleti v. CIT (2023) 455 ITR 48 /153 taxmann.com 284/ 333 CTR 103 (Telangana)(HC)

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Limitation-Appeal Should be heard within reasonable time-Directed to dispose of the appeal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. [S. 246A, 250(6A), Art. 226]