Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


L. A. Developers v. CIT (2024)471 ITR 444 (SC) Editorial : L. A. Developers v. CIT (2024) 471 ITR 437 (Orisa) (HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Ex-parte order by CIT(A)-Tribunal set a side the matter to decide on merits-The assessee trying to use technical reasons-Appeal is dismissed-SLP of assessee is dimissed. [S. 147, 255 (8), 263,Art. 136]

Sanjay Sevantilal Shah v. Interim Board for Settlement (IBS) (2024) 471 ITR 311 /160 taxmann.com 255 (Guj) (HC)

S. 245C : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Conditions-Application was filed on 30-3-2021-CBDT’s press release giving taxpayers an opportunity to file application for settlement by 30-9-2021-Eligible application though filed after 31-1-2021-Pending application which is required to be considered as pending application for adjudication on merits.[S.153A, 245B, 245D, 245D, 245F, Art. 226]

SIS Prosegur Holding Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2024)471 ITR 403 (Patna) (HC)

S. 226 : Collection and recovery-Modes of recovery-Matter pending before CIT(A)-Stayed further recovery of proceedings till the disposal of the appeal. [S. 143(3) 254, 263, Art. 226]

Gokal Chand Rattan Chand v. UOI (2024)471 ITR 337/ 163 taxmann.com 222 (P&H) (HC)

S. 226 : Collection and recovery-Modes of recovery-Tax recovery officer-Reassessment-Strictures-After period of seventeen years-Auction by Income tax Authority-Tax recovery officer-Hindu undivided family-Pendency of appeal-Fictitious demand-Auction is nullity-TRO should cancel recovery certificate on being informed that payment had been made by concerned defaulter-Directed to pay the compensation-Where a reference has been admitted by High Court against an order of Tribunal, prudence demands to keep away from conducting auction of properties for purpose of recovery-An auction conducted under the Income-tax Act, 1961 cannot be put on the same footing as that of an auction being conducted for execution of a decree by the Court or elsewhere in public as it would be in clear distinction of income-tax default auction-Income tax department is directed to pay cost of Rs 1 lakh to the petitioner. [S. 147, 224, 225(3), 256(1), 256(2), Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S 52, Rule 56,60,61, 62, of schedule, Art. 226, 300A]

CIT v. Dadha Pharma (P.) Ltd. (2023) 153 taxmann.com 106 / (2024) 471 ITR 545 (Mad) (HC) CIT v. S. Mohancahnd Dadha (Indl) (2023) 153 taxmann.com 106 / (2024) 471 ITR 545 (Mad) (HC)

S. 158BA : Block assessment-Undisclosed income-Unexplained money-Shares-Block assessment-Assessment has to be made on actual undisclosed income and not on notional basis-The submission that the amount involved is below monitory limit is also not accepted-Matter remanded to the Assessing Officer.[S. 69A, 132, 158B(b), 158BC, 260A, 268A]

PCIT v. Setco Automotive Ltd. (2024)471 ITR 247 /161 taxmann.com 254 (Guj) (HC)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Mistake apparent from the record-Book profit-Surrender of income-Surrendered income is not included in the book profit-Not a patent error-Rectification is not justified. [S.115JB, 133A]

Citrix Systems Asia Pacific Proprietary Ltd. v Dy. CIT (IT)(2024) 471 ITR 452/160 taxmann.com 625 (Karn) (HC)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Mistake apparent from the record-Subsequent decision of Supreme Court-Order must be rectified-Order of AAR which was overruled by Supreme Court-Circular No 688 dated 17-11 1971(1972) 83 ITR 6 (St).[Art. 226]

CIT v. Himalaya Drug Company (2024) 471 ITR 763/169 taxmann.com 244 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Himalaya Drug Company (2023) 22 ITR-OL 33(Karn)(HC)/ 2021 SCC online Kar 16067

S. 153C : Assessment-Income of any other person-Search-Notice issued prior to transfer of case-Notice and order is bad in law-The amendment by insertion of clause (c) in sub section (3) of section 124(3)(c)m by Finance Act, 2016(2016) 384 ITR 1 (St), which came into effect from 1-6-2016 is prospective in nature-Order of High Court is affirmed-SLP of revenue is dismissed. [S. 124, 127(2), Art. 136]

Shram Enterprises v. ACIT (2024)471 ITR 456 (Karn) (HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Notice issued without giving an opportunity of hearing heard-Notice and order is set aside. [S. 147, 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]

Annam Rajasekher Bindu v. ITO (2024)471 ITR 328/158 taxmann.com 406 (Mad) (HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Purchase of property-Income from other sources-Order for issue of notice was not mentioned in the initial notice-Notice and order is quashed-Matter remanded.[S. 56(2)(viib), 147, 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]