Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Petrus Lambertus Maria Hermans v. ACIT (TDS) (2023) 293 Taxman 176/334 CTR 933 // (2024) 460 ITR 513 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 276B : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to pay to the credit tax deducted at source-High Court dismissed the petition to quash the proceedings. [S. 200, 204, 278B]

Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2023) 293 Taxman 189 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Penalty notice provided less than 24 hours to assessee to appear in person or through authorized representative-Shorter period could be termed as a pure and simple breach of principles of natural justice-Assessing Officer was to be directed to give an opportunity of hearing to assessee from stage where it was left-Matter remanded.[Art. 226]

Ratan Industries Ltd. v. PCIT (2023) 293 Taxman 690 (All.)(HC)

S. 264 : Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Reassessment-Pendency of writ petition-Revision petition filed by assessee against reassessment order was to be decided.[S. 143(3), 147, 264(4)(a), Art. 226]

PCIT v. Techno Tracom (P.) Ltd. (2023) 293 Taxman 392/334 CTR 820/ 226 CTR 185/(2024) 461 ITR 47 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Cash credits-Share capital-Unsecured loans-Record-Principal Commissioner had to examine all records pertaining to assessment year at time of examination by him, which included, post-search assessment proceedings and thereafter only if he found that order passed by Assessing Officer on any issue was erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to interest of revenue-Order of Tribunal quashing the revision order is affirmed.[S. 68, 153A]

PCIT v. SPPL Property Management (P.) Ltd. (2023) 293 Taxman 458 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Provision for doubtful debts-Air-conditioning charges-Employees contributions(EPF/ ESI-Assessing Officer followed the order of jurisdictional High Court-Order in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd (2023) 290 Taxman 19/(2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC) is considered-Order of Tribunal quashing the revision order is affirmed. [S. 36(1)(va), 37 (1)]

PCIT v. R.K. Jain Infra Projects (P.) Ltd. (2023) 293 Taxman 465 /(2024) 464 ITR 555(Delhi)(HC)/Editorial: SLP of Revenue is dismissed , PCIT v. R.K. Jain Infra Projects (P.) Ltd ( 2024) 297 Taxman 369 /464 ITR 584( SC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Business expenditure-Specific query was raised in the original assessment proceedings-Mere failure to issue notice under section 133(6) did not warrant exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act-Order of Tribunal is affirmed.[S. 37(1), 143(3)]

Sushil Kumar Goyal v. P CIT (2023) 293 Taxman 653 /333 CTR 464/ 226 DTR 345 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 245C : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Case-There was no case pending in relation to assessment years on date of respective applications-Any proceeding for assessment under this Act-Application for the Assessment year 2012-13 and 2013-14 are held to be not maintainable-Applications in respect of assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17 were maintainable because in terms of Explanation (iv) proceedings for said assessment years were not concluded on date on which assessees had filed their respective applications-Order of Settlement Commission was affirmed.[S.148, 245A,Art. 226]

Goa Forest Development Corporation v. PCIT (2023) 293 Taxman 62 /333 CTR 509 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Assessing Officer failed to disclose reasons while rejecting stay application and Commissioner (Appeals) also failed to consider stay application considering financial hardships-Assessee was directed to deposit 10 per cent of disputed demand-Matter remanded. [S. 144, 156, 250, Art. 226]

PCIT v. Lanshree Products & Services Ltd. (2023) 293 Taxman 53 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Mistake apparent from the record-Book profit-Claim of set off of book loss or unabsorbed depreciation upto assessment year 2014-15-Debatable issue-Order of Tribunal allowing the appeal of the assessee is affirmed. [S. 115JB]

KPL Assets LLP v. ACIT (2023) 293 Taxman 474/ (2025 ) 472 ITR 157 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 153A : Assessment-Search-Assessment orders were passed without giving reasons as to why department had not granted specific time despite petitioner’s specific request-Assessment orders were quashed and matters to be remanded back to department for fresh consideration.[S. 143(3), 153B, Art. 226]