Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


CIT v. Mohammed Meeran Shahul Hameed (2021) 438 ITR 288 / 322 CTR 867 /206 DTR 209 / 283 Taxman 454(SC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limitation-Order to be made within two years-Order passed and dispatched with in two years-Received the copy of order after eight months-Order is valid-Date of receipt is not relevant-Interpretation of taxing statute-The provision of the statute are to be as they are and nothing is to be added or taken away from the provisions of the statute. [S. 263(2)]

Southern Roadways Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2021) 437 ITR 369 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-No power of review-Rejection of application was held to be valid. [S. 254(1), 260A, Art. 226]

PCIT v. Ashokji Chanduji Thakkor (2021) 130 taxmann.com 130 (Guj)(HC) Editorial : SLP of assessee dismissed, Ashokji Chanduji Thakkor v. PCIT (2021) 282 Taxman 307 (SC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Duties-Order passed without any reasons-Failure to reply the addition was up held by the CIT(A)-Tribunal set aside the order-High Court reversed the order of the Appellate Tribunal. [S. 69, 153A]

Regional Institute of Education (National Council of Educational Research and Training) v. CCIT (2021)437 ITR 192 (Orisa)(HC)

S. 253 : Appellate Tribunal-Delay of 2554 days-Reason for delay was not satisfactory-Order of tribunal was affirmed. [S. 254(1), Art. 226]

PCIT v. Paragon Biomedical India (P.) Ltd. (2021) 438 ITR 227 /(2022) 484 Taxman 479 (Ker.) (HC)

S. 251 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Powers-Free trade zone-Modification of claim-Revised return was not filed-Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to entertain modification of claim without filing revised return. [S. 10A, 10B, 139, 246A]

Akash Fertility Centre and Hospital v. CIT (2021) 438 ITR 240 / 206 DTR 1 / 322 CTR 240 (Mad.)(HC) T. Kamaraj v. CIT (2021) 438 ITR 240 / 206 DTR 1 / 322 CTR 240 (Mad.)(HC) K. S. Jeyarani v. CIT (2021) 438 ITR 240 / 206 DTR 1 / 322 CTR 240 (Mad.)(HC) Editorial : Decision of the single judge in CIT v. Akash Fertility Centre and Hospital (2021) 435 ITR 380 (Mad.)(HC) reversed.

S. 245D : Settlement Commission-Procedure-Application-Writ petition was filed after long gap of time-Addition made by the Settlement Commission was accepted and consequential order was passed-Order of single judge was set aside. [S. 132, 153C, ITSC(P) Rules 1997, R.9, Art. 226]

K. Velusamy-Major (HUF) v. PCIT (2021) 438 ITR 488/208 DTR 352 (2022) 325 CTR 58 (Mad.)(HC) S. Chandralekha (Smt.) v. PCIT (2021) 438 ITR 488/208 DTR 352 / ( 2022) 325 CTR 58(Mad.)(HC) Editorial : Decision of the single judge in PCIT v. K. Velusamy-Major (HUF) (2021) 438 ITR 477/ 208 DTR 358 (Mad.)(HC), PCIT v. S. Chandralekha (Smt.) (2021) 438 ITR 477 / 208 DTR 358(Mad.)(HC) set aside.

S. 245D : Settlement Commission-Procedure-Application-Court can only examine the decision making process and not the decision it self-Order of single judge was set aside-Interest-Only up to date of order of admission of application and not up to date of order of settlement. [S. 245D(4), ITSC Rules, R. 9, Art. 226]

PCIT v. Settlement Commission (IT and WT) (2021) 438 ITR 258 / 206 CTR 33 / 322 CTR 583 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 245D : Settlement Commission-Procedure-Application-Survey-Principle of natural justice not violated-Court cannot substitute findings of Settlement Commission-Order of Settlement Commission affirmed. [S. 133A, 245C, 245D(4), ITSC R. 9, Art. 226]

Orchid Pharma Ltd. v. ITSC (2021) 438 ITR 427 / 208 DTR 369/ 283 Taxman 507 (2022) 325 CTR 423 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 245D : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-twenty seven issues accepted by the assessee-Writ challenging only one issue is held to be not maintainable.[S. 245D(4), 245I, Art. 226]

CIT v. ITSC (2021) 437 ITR 52/ 207 DTR 393/ 323 CTR 675 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 245C : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-search and seizure-Undisclosed income-Mala fide intention-Failure to disclose true and full disclosure-Settlement commission ought to have rejected the application. [S. 132, 153A, 245D(4), Art. 226]