Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


PCIT v. Chandrikaben Rajeshbhai Undhad [2025] 306 Taxman 347 (SC) Editorial : Mohanbhai Madhavjibhai Bharad v. PCIT(2024) 158 taxmann.com 13/ 465 ITR 313 (Guj)(HC)

S. 244A: Refund-Interest on refund-Delay in filing return condoned-Assessee not at fault-Deductor failed to intimate TDS and issue Form 16A-Interest payable from date of TDS deposit till date of refund-Delay of 471 days-SLP of revenue dismissed on account of delay as well as on merits. [S. 119(2)(b), 194LA, Rule 13 of IT Rules, Art. 136]

PCIT v. Bhimjibhai Madhavjibhai Bharad [2025] 306 Taxman 334 (SC) Editorial : Bhimjibhai Madhavjibhai Bharad v.PCIT (2024) 158 taxmann.com 13/ 465 ITR 313 (Guj)(HC)

S. 244A: Refund-Interest on refund-Delay in filing return condoned-Assessee not at fault for non-claim of refund-Deductor failed to inform TDS and issue Form 16A-Interest payable from date of TDS deposit till the date of refund-Delay of 457 days-SLP dismissed on account of delay as well as on merits. [S.119(2)(b), 194LA, Rule 13 of IT Rules, Art. 136]

Collector Mining, Kanker v. DCIT (TDS) (2025) 306 Taxman 362 (Chhattisgarh)(HC)

S. 206C : Collection at source-Trading-Forest produce-Illegal mining-TCS applies only to payments by lease/license/contract-holders and cannot extend to compounding fees/fines from illegal miners-Order of Tribunal set aside. [S.133A, 206(IC), MMDR Act, 23A(1), R.71(5)]

Pune Municipal Corporation v. ACIT, TDS (2025)306 Taxman 175 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 194C : Deduction at source-Contractors-Slum rehabilitation scheme on a particular plot of land-Transferable development rights (TDR)-Assessee having made out a prima facie case, implementation and operation of impugned order passed under sections 201 and 201(1A) deserved to be stayed, and consequently, demand and penalty notices were also to be stayed-Revenue was directed to file reply on or before 25th August 2025. [S.194B, 194LA, 194R, 201, 201(IA), 271C, 274, MRTP Act, 1966, S.126, Art. 226]

S.Pushpa v. PCIT (2025) 306 Taxman 197 (Mad.) (HC)

S. 188A: Firm-Joint and Several Liability of Partners-Dissolution of firm-Liability of sleeping partner-Liable to tax liability incurred by the firm. [Art. 226]

ACIT v. Pramod Jain (2025) 306 Taxman 162 (SC) Editorial : Shyam Sunder Khandelwal v.ACIT (2024) 161 taxmann.com 255 (Raj)(HC)

S. 153C : Assessment-Income of any other person-Search-Proceedings must be taken under S. 153C read with assessment under S. 153A), and not under S. 148/147-Delay of 322 and 358 days-SLP of revenue dismissed on account of delay as well as on merits.[S. 147, 148, 153A, Art. 136]

ACIT v. Neelkanth Steel and Alloys (2025) 306 Taxman 100 (SC) Editorial : Saksham Commodities Ltd v. ITO (2024) 161 taxmann.com 485/ 464 ITR 1 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 153C : Assessment-Income of any other person-Search-Not recording of satisfaction-No incriminating material-Abated-Proceedings invalid-SLP of revenue dismissed.[S. 153A, Art. 136]

ITO v. Prakash Pandurang Patil [2025] 306 Taxman 341 (SC)] Editorial : Prakash Pandurang Patil v.ITO (2025) 177 taxmann.com 552 (Bom)(HC)

S. 151A: Face less assessment scheme-Reassessment-Notice issued without mandatory faceless mechanism-After expiry of three years-Approval by authority not as pre provisions of S. 151(ii)-Proceedings invalid-Delay of 248 days-SLP was dismissed on account of delay as well as on merits. [S. 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), 151(i), 151(ii), Art. 136]

Alleppey Sarvodaya Sangh v. ITO (2025) 306 Taxman 192 (Ker)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Return in response to section 148 was delayed due technical constraint-Faceless assessment-Assessment order quashed and set aside-Directed to consider the exemption. [S.10(23), 144B, 148, Art. 226]

Mukul Mahanta v. UOI [2025] 306 Taxman 38 (Cal)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Principle of natural justice-Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)-Time allowed for reply to notice under section 148A(b) was 4 days instead of 7 days as per the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the CBDT-No prejudice caused to the assessee merely because 4 days were provided instead of 7 days as suggested in SOP-Writ petition dismissed. [S. 148, 148A(b) 148A(d), Art. 226]