Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


PCIT v. Shukla Dairy (P) Ltd. (2022) 288 Taxman 750 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Deduction of tax at source-Contractors/sub-contractor-Cash payment-Survey-Tribunal was justified in quashing revisionary proceedings on ground that order passed by AO was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to interest of revenue. [S. 40(a)(ia), 40A(3), 194C, R.6DD]

PCIT v. Kalinga Metalics Ltd. (2022) 288 Taxman 688 /(2023)455 ITR 553 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 260A : Decision of Court-High Court-Delay of 535 days-Condonation of delay was allowed.

Induri Rama Rao v. PCIT (2022) 288 Taxman 56 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 255 : Appellate Tribunal-Appointment of Member-Waiting list-Appointed pursuant directions of Apex Court-Shall be entitled for consideration of notional seniority and other consequential benefits-Entitled to pay only from date of his assuming charge. [Art. 32, 226, 227]

Olympus Suppliers (P) Ltd. v. PCIT (2022) 288 Taxman 41 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Duties-Limitation-Share capital-Cash credits-Revision-Lack of enquiry-Appeal dismissed on the ground that issues raised in appeals were covered by several orders passed by Tribunal-Not dealt with merits-Matter was sent back to Tribunal to take a decision [S. 68, 260A,263]

Advocate Association Bengaluru v. Anoop Kumar Mendiratta (2022) 288 Taxman 8 (SC).

S. 252 : Appellate Tribunal-Members-Qualification-Appointment of Members Contempt-Not appointing the members of the Tribunal-Recommendations of the Search cum selection commission-Before recommendations are formulated and in exceptional cases where certain material comes to light after submission of recommendations, that must also be drawn to attention of SCSC so as to enable it to consider whether any modification of its recommendations is necessary. [Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, S. 3]

Yeswath Kavitha v. ITO (2022) 288 Taxman 120 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Stay-Directed to deposit 10 percent of outstanding demand. [S. 220(6), 246A, Art. 226]

Ram Gopal Sharma v. ITO (2022) 288 Taxman 211/(2023) 331 CTR 110 (Raj.)(HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Stay-Deposited 20 percent of demand-Pendency of stay application-Recovered entire amount in a ex parte manner-Assessing Officer was directed to refund excess amount already recovered from assessee and he would be entitled to keep only 20 per cent of demand until appeal was decided. [Art. 226]

CIT (TDS) v. Tata Teleservices Ltd. (2022) 288 Taxman 775 / 217 DTR 453 (2023) 456 ITR 691 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 194J : Deduction at source-Fees for professional or technical services-Not liable to deduct TDS on telecom service provider, on payment of interconnect user charges as it could not be categorized as fee for technical services. [S. 9(1)(vii), 201]

CIT v. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (2022)449 ITR 431/ 288 Taxman 539 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 194J : Deduction at source-Fees for professional or technical services-Supply of rolling stock-Payment to consortium not liable to deduct tax at source. [S. 201(IA)]

Surendra Commercial & Exim (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2022) 288 Taxman 580 / 220 DTR 35/ 329 CTR 955 (Cal.)(HC)/Editorial: SLP of assessee dismissed as withdrawn Surendra Commercial & Exim (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2023) 291 Taxman 202 (SC)

S. 194C : Deduction at source-Contractors-Clearing and forwarding agent-Reimbursement of expenditure-Tax had to be deducted at source even in respect of reimbursements which had been incurred by agent. [S. 260A]