Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Pace Vision v .Income tax Department ( 2020) The Chamber’s Journal -May -P 82 ( Karn) ( HC)

S. 276CC : Offences and prosecutions – Failure to furnish return of income – Failure to file return- Prior approval of CCIT was sought by CIT before passing the sanction order u/s 279- Prosecution is held to be not maintainable [ S.133A, 139(1), 142(10, 153, 278E, 279, Criminal Procedure Code, 200 ]

Kewalchnad M. Kothari v. DCIT ( 2020) 120 taxmann.com 91 / 274 Taxman 495 /(2021 ) 197 DTR 406/ 319 CTR 314 ( Mad) (HC)

S. 276C : Offences and prosecutions – Wilful attempt to evade tax – Delay in payment of tax and filing of return – Delay in handing over books of account- Criminal proceeding is held to be clear abuse of process of law – Proceedings pending before Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was quashed . [ S.132 , 276(2)]

PCIT v . Devchand B. Patel ( 2020) The Chamber’s Journal- April -P. 120 ( Guj) (HC)

S.271D: Penalty – Takes or accepts any loan or deposit -Dairy seized – Deletion of penalty is held to be valid [ S.132 ]

Motilal Salecha HUF v. PCIT ( 2020) The Chamber’s Journal – April P. 127 (Mum) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Penny stock- Capital gains- Order passed in haste and without proper enquiry can be revised – PCIT can not conclude the issue and direct the Assessing Officer to decide it in a particular manner [ S.45 ]

Sri Purna Chandra Biswal v. PCIT ( 2020) The Chamber’s Journal – January -P. 91 ( Cuttack) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Rejection of books of account – Revision order directing the Assessing Officer to make addition u/s 68 or 41 is held to be not valid [ S.41, 68, 145(3)]

CIT v. Padmavathi (Smt) ( 2020) 120 taxmann.com 187 (Mad) (HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Assessment – Limited scrutiny case – Commissioner cannot exercise the power to look in to any issue which the Assessing Officer Could not look at [ S.50C(2),56(2)(vii)(b)(ii), 143(3)]

Karuturi Gobal Ltd v . Dy.CIT( 2020) 116 taxmann.com 924 ( Karn) (HC)

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record –Limitation of six months- Tribunal does not have the power to condone the delay – High court has the power to condone the delay- Tribunal is bound to dispose the appeal on merits even in the absence of the assessee or its counsel – Dismissal of appeal for prosecution is resulted in a failure of justice . [ S.144C , 254(1) , ITAT, R. 24 , Art ,226, 227 ]

Sanjay Sawhney v .PCIT ( 2020) 116 taxmann.com 701/ 273 Taxman 33 / 192 DTR 105/ 316 CTR 392( Delhi) (HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal – Duties- Oral application – Subject matter of appeal – Order passed by the ITAT suffered from perversity in so far as it refused to allow the assessee to urge the grounds by way of an oral application under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules – Matter remanded back before the ITAT with a direction to hear the matter afresh by allowing the assessee to raise the additional grounds [ S.153C, ITAT Rules , R.27 ]

ITO v. Centrum Capital limited ( 2020) BCAJ-November -P. 55 (Mum) (Trib)

S. 253 : Appellate Tribunal – Cross objection- Ground can be raised for the first time which was not taken even in an appeal before CIT(A) [ S.14A, 254(1) R.8D ,Form 36A , Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 , Order, 9 , Rule, 3 ]

Keshalal Devakranbhai Patel v .ACIT ( 2020) 118 taxmann.com 223 ( Rajkot) (Trib)

S. 250 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Duties – Dismissal of appeal merely on technical ground that written submission field by the assessee did not bear the signature of assessee is held to be not justified – Matter remanded to the file of CIT (A) to decide the issue on merit [ S.250(6), 271 AAA ]