Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Monarch v. ITO (2020) 273 Taxman 63 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Stay-Attachment of bank account is to be limited to 20 percent of demand. [S. 220 (6), Art. 226]

Jindal ITF Ltd. v. UOI (2020) 273 Taxman 39 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Stay of demand-Loan-Stay was granted subject to 20 percent payment of tax in dispute. [S. 68, 220(6), Art. 226]

Subramania Siva v. ITO (2020) 272 Taxman 455 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 199 : Deduction at source-Credit for tax deducted-Issue of manual 26A-Assessee was directed to approach department by making application enclosing Form 16A and department would consider claim of assesse. [Form 16A, 26A, Art. 226]

Ashita Nilesh Patel v. ACIT (2020) 270 Taxman 132 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 179 : Private company-Liability of directors-Notice was silent regarding fact that tax dues could not be recovered from company and, further, there was no whisper of any steps being taken against company for recovery of outstanding amount-Notice against assessee was set aside. [Art. 226]

Ernakulam District Posts Telecom and BSNL Employees Co-op. Society Ltd. v. ITO (2020) 273 Taxman 21 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Alternative remedy is not absolute bar-Dismissal of application in a mechanical manner without even affording an opportunity of hearing-not to be relegated to avail alternative remedy of filing appeal, rather, impugned order was to be set aside and matter was to be remanded back to respondent for fresh disposal. [Art. 226]

Unitac Energy Solutions (I) (P) Ltd. v. PCIT (2020) 272 Taxman 464 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Refund-Tax deducted at source-Credit was not given-Assessing Authority was to be directed to pass order on rectification application within 3-4 weeks time. [S. 237 Art.226]

Miranda Tools (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2020) 272 Taxman 154 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-Sanction granted by Chief Commissioner-Chief Commissioner was not specified officer under section 151(2) to grant such sanction-Notice was quashed. [S. 2(28C), 148, 151(2) Art. 226]

eMudhra Ltd v. ACIT (2020) 273 Taxman 473 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Non-existing company-Substantive illegality and not procedural violation of nature adverted to in section 292-B, hence, not curable-Notice was quashed. [S. 142 (1), 147, 292B, Art. 226]

Suresh Chand Gupta v. PCIT (2020) 273 Taxman 66/ ( 2021 ) 438 ITR 657 (All.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Audit objection-Income from other sources-Profit worked out profit on basis of contract/sub-contract income but failed to add interest income shown in books as other income-Reassessment is held to be valid. [S. 56, 148]

Daison Joseph v. CIT (2020) 272 taxman 51 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 139 : Return of income-Condonation of delay-Treatment of daughter-Matter remanded to Commissioner for giving one more opportunity to the assessee to produce all documents relating to treatment of his child. [S. 119, Art. 226]