Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Yogesh Roshanlal Gupta v .CBDT (2021) 432 ITR 91 /199 DTR 81/ 319 CTR 389 / 280 Taxman 278(Guj) (HC).Editorial: On appeal , the honourable Supreme Court directed that the assessee be given benefit of the amounts deposited towards first two instalments while reckoning the tax liability of the assessee after revised assessment , Yogesh Roshanlal Gupta v .CBDT ( 2022) 442 ITR 31 (SC)

Income Declaration Scheme , 2016

S. 191 : Tax paid under the Scheme shall not be refunded – Paid two instalments – Default in paying final instalment – Not entitle to get the refund already pad . [ S. 183, 185 Art, 226 ]

PCIT v. Indian Sugar Exim Corpn. Ltd. (2020) 115 taxmann.com 266 (Delhi)(HC) Editorial : SLP of revenue is dismissed, PCIT v. Indian Sugar Exim Corpn. Ltd. (2020) 272 Taxman 185 (SC)

S. 275 : Penalty-Bar of limitation-limitation begins to run from date of order of Appellate Tribunal was served upon Commissioner (Judicial). [S. 271(1)(c), 275(1)(a)]

Asian Consolidated Industries Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2020) 114 taxmann.com 105 (Delhi)(HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed Dy.CIT v. Asian Consolidated Industries Ltd. (2020) 270 Taxman 184 (SC)

S. 271D : Penalty-Takes or accepts any loan or deposit-Amount received from sister concern in a running account were held not to constitute as an infraction under Section 269SS-Tribunal should have remanded matter back-Order of penalty was set aside. [S. 254(1), 269SS]

PCIT v. Sahara India Financial Corpn. Ltd. (2020) 119 taxmann.com 284 (Delhi)(HC) Editorial : SLP of revenue is dismissed, PCIT v. Sahara India Financial Corpn. Ltd. (2020) 274 Taxman 214 (SC)

S. 271D : Penalty-Takes or accepts any loan or deposit-Depositors belonged to rural areas where adequate banking facilities were not available-Deletion of penalty is held to be justified. [S. 269SS]

Vikas Bhatnagar v. ITO (2020) 120 taxmann.com 461 (AP)(HC) Editorial : SLP of assessee is dismissed, Vikas Bhatnagar v. ITO (2020) 275 Taxman 594(SC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Writ against penalty order is not maintainable when the quantum addition is in challenge before Appellate Authorities. [S. 144, 271(1))(b), Art. 226]

PCIT v. Ashok Kumar Maneklal Parikh (2020) 120 taxmann.com 268 (Bom.)(HC) Editorial : SLP of revenue is dismissed, PCIT v. Ashok Kumar Maneklal Parikh (2020) 274 Taxman 457 (SC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Not declared capital gain arising from sale of leasehold rights-Deletion of penalty is held to be justified. [S. 45, 54EC]

PCIT v. National Diary Development Board (2020) 114 taxmann.com 553 (Guj.)(HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed PCIT v. National Diary Development Board (2020) 270 Taxman 6 (SC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Disallowance of claim-Appeal pending before High Court-Reasonable explanation-Deletion of penalty is held to be justified. [S. 36 (1)(iii)]

PCIT v. Prabhjot Kaur Chhabra (Smt.) (2020) 113 taxmann.com 140 (MP) (HC) Editorial : SLP of revenue is dismissed, PCIT v. Prabhjot Kaur Chhabra (Smt.) (2020) 269 Taxman 34 (SC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Capital gain not shown in original return-Revised return prior to issue of notice u/s. 153C of the Act-Deletion of penalty is held to be justified. [S.45, 133A, 153C]

PCIT v. Financial Technologies Ltd. (2019) 112 taxmann.com 398 (Bom.)(HC) Editorial : SLP of revenue is dismissed, PCIT v. Financial Technologies Ltd (2020) 269 Taxman 32 (SC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Depreciation withdrawn during subsequent search proceedings-Levy of penalty is held to be not justified. [S. 32, 132(4), 153A]

PCIT v. Basanti Properties (P.) Ltd. (2020) 114 taxmann.com 540 (Cal.)(HC) Editorial : SLP of revenue is dismissed due to low tax effect, PCIT v. Basanti Properties (P.) Ltd. (2020) 269 Taxman 573 (SC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Unless while issuing notice under section 271, read with section 274, no details of any charge were provided penalty cannot be levied [S. 274]