Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


CIT(E) v. Choice Foundation (2022) 440 ITR 106 / 285 Taxman 48 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limitation-Reassessment-Period of limitation commences from date of original assessment and not from date of reassessment- Revision barred by limitation-Donation to corpus fund-Capital in nature. [S. 11(1)(d), 11(5), 143(1),147, 148, 263(2)]

CIT v. Barry-Wehmiller International Resources (P.) Ltd. (2022) 440 ITR 403 / 211 DTR 127 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Export-Change in share holdings without beneficial interest-Reassessment proceedings initiated was dropped-No jurisdiction under section 263 to examine the correctness of decision by the Assessing Officer. [S. 10A(9), 147, 148]

PCIT v. Gladder Ceramics Ltd. (2022) 440 ITR 459 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Review-Deemed dividend-Matter pending before larger Bench of Supreme Court-Order restored to extent of issue pending before larger Bench. [S. 2(22)(e)]

Jacob Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 440 ITR 262 / 285 Taxman 326 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Duties-Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Comparable-Government companies-Directions issued to Tribunal to consider other grounds of appeal. [S. 92CA, 254(2), Art. 226]

Hosmat Hospital Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (TDS) (2022) 440 ITR 149 (Karn.) (HC) Editorial : Order of Tribunal in Hosmat Hospital Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (TDS)(2016) 50 ITR 70 (SN) (Bang) (Trib) set aside.

S. 192 : Deduction at source-Salary-Fees for professional or technical services-In house consultants-Assessee in default-Incentive policy adopted by company-Orders of Tribunal was set aside. [S. 194J, 201(1), 201(IA)]

Chams Branding Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 440 ITR 602 / 209 DTR 444 / 324 CTR 119 / 284 Taxman 548 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Violation of principle of natural justice-Not responding to notices-Last notice did not give sufficient time reply-Writ is not maintainable. [S. 142(1), 143(3), Art. 226]

Loku Ram Malik v. CIT (2022) 440 ITR 159 (Raj.)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Pendency of assessment-Time limit for issue of notice u/s. 143(2) was not expired-Notice issued for reassessment was quashed. [S. 143(1)(a), 143(2), 143(3), 147]

Jagdish Kumar Basantani v. ITO (2022) 440 ITR 39 (MP)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Constitutional validity-The delegation authorized being only for the purpose of enlarging limitation under a valid law, such delegation could not be exercised to resurrect the provision of law that stood omitted from the statute book by virtue of its substitution made by the Finance Act, 2021, w.e.f. 01.04.2021-Directions issued. [Art. 226]

Sri Jagannath Promoters and Builders v. Dy. CIT (2022) 440 ITR 192 / 209 DTR 188 / 324 CTR 233 / 284 Taxman 469 (Ori.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-Change of opinion-No tangible material-Not valid. [S. 148, Art. 226]

N. S. Srinivasan v. ACIT (NO. 2) (2022) 440 ITR 376 / 211 DTR 316 / 325 CTR 511 / 284 Taxman 42 (Mad.)(HC) Editorial : decision of single judge in N. S. Srinivasan v. ACIT (NO. 1) (2022) 440 ITR 367 / 325 CTR 521(Mad)(HC) is reversed

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-No failure to disclose material facts-Change of opinion-Notice was quashed. [S. 148, Art. 226]