Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Harsh Dhanuka HUF v. PCIT (2024) 469 ITR 162 / 164 taxmann.com 193/341 CTR 154 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 245D : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Procedure-Application-Scope of provision-Power of ITSC to pass an order not limited only to aspects covered by application of settlement preferred by the assessee-ITSC empowered to render decision on issues which find mention in report of CIT-Order of Settlement Commission is affirmed.[S. 153A, 245C, 245D(4), Art. 226]

Birla Corporation Ltd. v. PCIT (2024) 301 Taxman 357 (MP)(HC)

S. 240 : Refunds-Appeal –Order of Tribunal-Refund denied- Revenue is bound to refund amount to the Assessee with interest as per the provisions of Section 240 and there is no onus on the part of the Assessee to complete any formality for the amount of refund due-Non-functionality of TRACES Portal is not a ground for denying benefit arising out of statutory provision under the Act. [S.201(1)(201(IA), 254(1), Form Non26B, Art. 226]

CIT (IT) v. Edgeverse Systems Ltd. [2024] 469 ITR 267 (Karn)(HC)

S. 206AA :Requirement to furnish Permanent Account Number-Provisions of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 cannot override Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.[S.90, 260A]

Nilgiri Dairy Farm (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (IT) (2024) 301 Taxman 410 (Karn)(HC)

S. 201 : Deduction at source-Failure to deduct or pay –Order passed beyond four years-Barred by limitation-Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Fees for technical services- [S.9(1)(vii), 195 201(1), 201(IA), 260A]

DIT v. Ahmedabad Vadodara Expressway Co Ltd. (2024) 301 Taxman 590 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 201 : Deduction at source-Failure to deduct or pay –Survey-Direct payment to non-resident-Contractor-Deducted tax at 2 per cent under section 194C-Tribunal is justified in directing Assessing Officer to calculate interest on amount which was paid by contractor as self-assessment tax till date it was deposited and such interest was to be paid by assessee for not deducting tax at source.[S.133A, 194C (4), 195(2), 201(1), 201(IA), 260A]

Dinesh Jindal v. ACIT (2024) 469 ITR 32 / 164 taxmann.com 746 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 153C : Assessment-Income of any other person-Search- Reassessment-Time limit for notice-Search conducted in February 2022-Notice under S. 148 dated 30.03.2023 seeking to re-open assessment for A.Y. 2013-14-Relevant A.Y. fell beyond ten years block period set out in S. 153C and thus notice was time barred. [S. 132, 148, 149(1), 153A, Art. 226]

DCIT v. Sunil Kumar Sharma (2024) 469 ITR 197 / 159 taxmann.com 179 (Karn)(HC) Editorial :SLP of Revenue is dismissed, Dy.CIT v. Sunil Kumar Sharma (2024) 469 ITR 271/ 168 taxmann.com 77/ 302 Taxman 9 (SC)

S. 153C: Assessment-Income of any other person-Search-Loose Sheets of papers not shown to form part of books of accounts regularly maintained by assessee would not constitute material evidence-Reasonable opportunity to be provided to assessee before transfer of case in accordance with S. 127-Satisfaction Note to be recorded for each assessment year separately. [S. 127, 132, 153A, Art. 226]

PCIT v. VSL Mining Company (P.) Ltd. (2024) 301 Taxman 631 (Karn)(HC)

S. 153C : Assessment-Income of any other person-Search and seizure-Material pursuant to a search is relied upon-Assessing Officer is required to follow procedure as contemplated under section 153A, 153B and 153C and it is impermissible for Assessing Officer to continue regular assessment.[S. 132, 133A, 143(3), 153A, 260A]

PCIT v. Welspun India Ltd. (2024) 301 Taxman 575 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 153A : Assessment-Search or requisition-Search had been conducted on 13-10-2010 and assessments in question were for year 2005-06 to 2007-08 which had been unabated/concluded as on date of search-Assessing Officer is precluded from making any addition to return of income, in absence of incriminating material found as a result of search-The completed/unabated assessments can be reopened by the Assessing Officer in exercise of powers under section 147/148 subject to fulfilment of conditions as envisaged under the said provisions and as may be permissible in law. [S. 132,132A 147, 148, 260A]

Ramesh Chawla (HUF) v. ITO (2024) 301 Taxman 44 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 153 : Assessment-Limitation-Failure to pass the order within six months from the date of communication of the Tribunal order-Appellate Tribunal restored the matter to the file of AO with directions to comply with the same within 6 months-Assessment order passed beyond the stipulated timeline provided by the ITAT is barred by limitation.[S.153(3), 254(1) Art.226, 265]