Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Kandathil M. Mammen v. ITSC (2022) 446 ITR 595/ 218 DTR 65 /329 CTR 839 / 289 Taxman 347 (Mad.)(HC) Arun Mammen v. ITSC (2022) 446 ITR 595/ 218 DTR 65 /329 CTR 839 / 289 Taxman 347 (Mad.)(HC) Editorial : Decision of the single judge in Arun Mamen v. ITSC (2021) 438 ITR 378 (Mad)(HC) reversed.

S. 245C : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Full disclosure, co-operation with Commission-Disclosing Foreign Bank Accounts and extent of money available in them and filing affidavit narrating transfer of funds-Offer to be treated as true and full disclosure-Not to be treated as non-Co-operation-Mandatory personal hearing was not granted-Violation of principle of natural justice-Matter remanded to Settlement Commission. [S. 245D, 245D(3), Income-Tax Settlement Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1997, R. 6, 8, 9,9A, 15 Art. 226]

Priti Nanda v. CIT (Appeals) (2022) 446 ITR 513 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 226 : Collection and recovery-Modes of recovery-Pendency of appeal before CIT(A)-Freezing of bank accounts and demand recovered-Directed to file application to expedite hearing before National Faceless Appeal Centre. [S. 246A, Art. 226]

APR Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (Appeals) (2022) 446 ITR 275 / 214 DTR 313/ 327 CTR 113(Telangana)(HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Stay of demand-Commissioner (Appeals) being Quasi-Judicial Authority is not bound by administrative circulars issued by Central Board Of Direct Taxes-Deposit of 20% of the outstanding demand is not mandatory-CIT(A) has to apply is mind independently-Matter remanded. [S. 220(6), 246A, Art. 226]

Mascot Construction Co. v. PCIT (2022) 446 ITR 719 / 213 DTR 449 / 326 CTR 863 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Stay of demand-Deposit of 20 Per Cent. of demand-Order is held to be justified. [Art. 226]

National Petroleum Construction Co. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 446 ITR 382 / 216 DTR 241 / 327 CTR 617 / 289 Taxman 87(SC) Editorial : National Petroleum Construction Co. v. Dy. CIT (2020) 421 ITR 24 / 185 DTR 57/ 312 CTR 217 / 271 Taxman 150 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 197 : Deduction at source-Certificate for lower rate-Certificate of nil deduction-Non-Resident-Payments received from ONGC for work done inside and outside India-Powers of Assessing Officer while considering application for certificate-Difference of opinion between members of division bench-Matter to be referred to appropriate Bench-DTAA-India-The United Arab Emirates. [R. 28, 28AA, Art. 7]

PCIT v. J. J. Glastronics Pvt. Ltd. (2022) 446 ITR 712 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Book profits-Amounts disallowed under Section 14A cannot be added back to book profits-Debatable issue rectification order is not valid. [S. 14A, 115JB]

K. A. Rauf v. CIT (2022) 446 ITR 421 / 215 DTR 13/ 328 CTR 920 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 153A : Assessment-Search or requisition-Undisclosed income-Amounts credited to employees account-Admission by employees that the amount belong to the assessee-Peak and gross profit theory-Not accepted-Addition is held to be justified. [S. 132, 133A]

Urmila v. ITO (2022) 446 ITR 511/ 218 DTR 60 / 328 CTR 734(Raj.)(HC)/Surya Prakash v.ITO 2022)446 ITR 511/ 218 DTR 60 / 328 CTR 734 (Raj)(HC)/Vaijanti Dadhich v .ITO ( 2022)446 ITR 511/ 218 DTR 60 / 328 CTR 734 (Raj)(HC)

S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Request for adjournment to file response not granted-Assessing authority obliged to decide dispute in respect of a mount involved in transaction with reference to material submitted by assessee. [S. 148, 149, Art. 226]

Maharaja Edifice Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI (2022) 446 ITR 508 / 289 Taxman 468(Cal.)(HC)

S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Violation of principle of natural justice-Not furnished full information-Matter remanded. [S. 147, 148, Art. 226]

Parveen Amin Bhathara (Smt.) v. ITO (2022)446 ITR 201 / 218 DTR 51/ 328 CTR 831 (Mad.)(HC) Editorial : Sadhana Tolasaria v. ITO (2021) 18 ITR-OL 88 (Mad.)(HC), decision of Single judge reversed.

S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Limitation-Doctrine of substantial compliance-Mere signing of notice is not sufficient-Date of issue would be date on which notice was served on assessee-Notice dated 31-3-2018 served on assessee through E-Mail on 18-4-2018 for AY. 2011-12-Notice barred by limitation. [S. 147, 149, 282, R. 127, Art. 226]