Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


PCIT v. Sursh Kumar Gupta (2021) 207 DTR 307 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Sanction-Issue which was not raised before the Appellate Tribunal or CIT(A) cannot be raised first time before the High Court-Appeal of the revenue is dismissed. [S. 143(1), 147,147, 151]

PCIT v. Dileep Kumar (2021) 323 CTR 998 / 208 DTR 110 (All.)(HC)

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Territorial jurisdiction of High Court-Transfer of case-Pendency of proceedings-Ahmadabad Tribunal decided the appeal-Appeal was filed at Allahabad High Court-Jurisdiction vest with Gujarat High court-Appeal was dismissed. [S. 120, 127(2)]

PCIT v. Dileep Kumar (2021) 323 CTR 998 / 208 DTR 110 (All.)(HC)

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Territorial jurisdiction of High Court-Transfer of case-Pendency of proceedings-Ahmadabad Tribunal decided the appeal-Appeal was filed at Allahabad High Court-Jurisdiction vest with Gujarat High court-Appeal was dismissed. [S. 120, 127(2)]

Philips India Ltd. v. PCIT (2021) 323 CTR 992 / 208 DTR 211 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-lease rent-Tribunal followed order of earlier year and not followed the Judgement of Supreme Court-Miscellaneous application was dismissed-Order rejecting miscellaneous application was set aside-Non-consideration of judgement of Supreme Court is a mistake apparent on record-Matter remanded to Tribunal to decide on merits in accordance with law. [S. 37 (1), 200A]

CIT v. Reliance Communications Ltd. (2021) 323 CTR 873 / 208 DTR 113 / (2022) 440 ITR 1/ 284 Taxman 517 (SC) CIT v. Reliance Telecom Ltd. (2021) 323 CTR 873 / 208 DTR 113 / (2022) 440 ITR 1/ 284 Taxman 517 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. ITAT (Reliance Communications Ltd) ) (2017) 85 taxmann.com 42 (Bom)(HC) ) (2017) 85 taxmann.com 42 (Bom)(HC) (WP (L) No. 708 of 20017, WP No. 1406 & 1432 of 2017 dt. 8-8-2017 was set aside.

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Recalling the order is beyond the scope and ambit of the powers of the Tribunal-Tribunal has no power to recall its earlier order-Order recalling the order was quashed and set aside- Where Tribunal decides merits erroneously remedy of aggrieved party is to appeal before High Court – DTAA-India-Sweden-USA. [S. 195(2), 254(1), 260A, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order XLVII Rule 1, Art. 12 (3), Art. 226]

CIT v. Love in Action Society (2021) 208 DTR 257 / 323 CTR 1011 / (2022) 422 ITR 358(Ker.)(HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Revision-Revision order set aside by the Tribunal on the basis of material produced before it which was not produced before the Commissioner was held to be not valid-Order of Tribunal seta side and matter remanded to the Commissioner to decide a fresh in accordance with law. [S. 12AA, 263]

Premalatha Pagaria v. ITO (2021) 283 Taxman 68 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 253 : Appellate Tribunal-Delay of 310 days-Inadvertence mistake on part of Chartered Accountant-Delay in filing appeal was condoned. [S. 260A, Limitation Act, 1963, S. 5]

G. Rajam Chetty & Sons v. CIT (2021) 323 CTR 760 / 208 DTR 51 (Mad.) (HC)

S. 245D : Settlement Commission-Full and true disclosure-Settlement commission has considered the case of the assessee as well as the Department, and settled the case based upon the increased offer made by the assessee-There is no procedural error committed by the Commission-Order of single judge was seta side. [S. 245C, Art. 226]

CIT v. ITSC (2021) 283 Taxman 44 (Mad.)(HC) Editorial : Writ appeal is allowed and order of single judge is set aside . G. Rajam Chetty & Sons. v. UOI (2022) 285 Taxmann 525 (Mad)(HC)

S. 245D : Settlement Commission-Granted immunity based on wrong facts-Order was quashed and remitted back for fresh consideration. [S. 245C, Art. 226]

CIT v. IBM Singapore (P) Ltd. (2021) 131 taxmann.com 189 (Karn.) (HC) Editorial : Notice issued in SLP filed by the revenue against High Court order, CIT v. IBM Singapore (P) Ltd. (2021) 283 Taxman 288 (SC)

S. 234B : Interest-Advance tax-Tax deducted at source-Non-resident-Payer deducted tax at source-Levy of interest is held to be not justified.