Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


PCIT v. Prosperous Buildcon (P.) Ltd. [2023] 156 taxmann.com 446/(2024) 296 Taxman 255 (Delhi).

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
Expenses or payments not deductible-Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits-Order of PCIT quashing the revision order is affirmed. [S. 40A(3)]

PCIT v. Schaeffler India Ltd. [2023] 155 taxmann.com 651 /(2024) 296 Taxman 210 (Guj)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
Expenditure on scientific research-Form 3CL filed but delay in intimation-Commissioner passed the revision order-Order of Tribunal quashing the Revision order is affirmed. [S. 35(2AB), 260A, Form No. 3CL]

PCIT v. Techno Tracom (P.) Ltd (2023) 293 Taxman 392/ (2024) 461 ITR 47 /150 taxmann.com 465 (Cal)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
Cash credits-Share capital and share premium-Record-shall include and shall be deemed always to have been included all records relating to any proceedings under this Act available at the time of examination by the Ld. Pr. CIT or Commissioner-Order of Tribunal quashing the revision order is affirmed by High Court.[[S. 68, 153A, 260A]

PCIT v. Swatiben Biharilal Parekh (Mrs.) (2023) 156 taxmann.com 267 / (2024) 296 Taxman 38 (Guj)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Cash credits-Opting VSV Scheme is closure of disputes-Revision order is bad in law reopened by issuing notice under section 263 for revising assessment order-[S. 68, 260A, Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, S.4]

Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2024) 461 ITR 133 (Mad)(HC) Editorial : SLP dismissed, Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2024) 461 ITR 142 (SC)

S. 260A: Appeal-High Court-Delay of 2139 days-Absence of sufficient cause-Delay is cannot be condoned.

Purnagiri Rice Mill v. UOI (2024) 296 Taxman 507 (All) (HC)

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Limitation of six months-Ex-parte hearing by ITAT and recalling Ex-parte orders-Time limit of 6 months not to apply-Order of Tribunal is set aside. [S. 253(3), ITAT R. 1963, 24, Art. 226]

PCIT v. Manindra Mohan Mazumdar (2023) 150 taxmann.com 116 (2024) 461 ITR 56 (Cal) (HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Duties-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Losses in speculation business-Tribunal quashing the order of Revision-Documents placed before the Tribunal is not placed before the Commissioner-Matter remanded to the file of the Commissioner. [S. 73(1) 263]

Pradeep Kumar Naredi v. UOI (2022) 138 taxmann.com 378 / (2024) 461 ITR 414 (Cal)(HC) Editorial : Refer, Pradeep Kumar Naredi v. UOI (2024) 461 ITR 418 (Cal) (HC) RSB Industries Ltd v. UOI (2024) 461 ITR 418 (Cal)(HC)

S. 245C : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Conditions-Jurisdiction-Rejection of application-Order of rejection is valid-Court can only ensure proper implementation of law by statutory authority-Not duty of court to legislate or issue any circular or notification.[S.119(2)(b) Art. 226]

Jain Metal Rolling Mills v. UOI (2023) 335 CTR 761/(2024) 296 Taxman 336 / 461 ITR 423 (Mad)(HC)

S. 245C : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Conditions-Retrospective amendment made by the Finance Bill, 2021-Pending applications-last date for filing of application in Section 245C(5) should be read as 31-03-2021 instead of 01-02-2021 and consequently the last date mentioned in the circular should also be read as 31-03-2021 and thus, the pending applications between 01-02-2021 to 31-03-2021 and as on 31-03-2021 should be deemed as pending applications for purposes of consideration by Interim Board-Court cannot substitute its opinion to abolition of Settlement Commission. [S. 245A, 245C (5), 245D(11), Art. 226]

Matrix Publicities and Media India (P.) Ltd(2024) 296 Taxman 85 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 237 : Refunds-Interest on refunds—Public money-Technical issues at the Centralized Processing Center (CPC)-The High Court reprimanded the Department, stating that the interest is payable in law until the date of refund, and the Department failed to realise that it is the public money used to pay interest, which is a burden on the exchequer. A copy of the Order was asked to be sent to the Honourable Prime minster, The Hon’ble Finance Minister GOI, The Hon’ble Law Minister, the Central Board of Direct Taxes and to the Attorney General for India for information and necessary action.[S. 244A, Art. 226]