Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


UOI v. Ashsih Agarwal (2022) 444 ITR 1/ 213 DTR 217/ 326 CTR 473/ 286 Taxman 183 (SC) www.itatonline .org.Editorial : Decisions of the Allahabad , Calcutta , Rajasthan , Delhi, Chattisgarh , Bombay and Madras High Court modified. Ashok Kumar Agarwal v .UOI ( 2021) 439 ITRR 1 ( All)(HC), Bagaria Properties and Investment Pvt Ltd v .UOI (2021) 441 ITR 359 ( Cal)(HC) Manoj Jain v .UOI (2021) 441 ITR 359 ( Cal )(HC) , Manoj Jain v. UOI ( 2021) 441 ITR 418 ( Cal)(HC), BRIP Infra Pvt Ltd v.ITO ( 2022)440 ITR 300 ( Raj)(HC), Sudesh Taneja v .ITO ( 2022) 442 ITR 289 ( Raj)(HC), Mon Mohan Kholi v .ACIT ( 2022) 441 ITR 207 ( Delhi)(HC), Palak Khatuja v .UOI( 2021) 438 ITR 622 ( Chhhatishgarh )(HC), Tata Comminications Transformation Service Ltd v .ACIT ( 2022)) 443 ITR 49 ( Bom)(HC), Vellore Institute of Technology v .CBDT ( 2022) 442 ITR 233 ( Mad)(HC) Editorial : Decisions of the Allahabad , Calcutta , Rajasthan , Delhi, Chattisgarh , Bombay and Madras High Court modified. Ashok Kumar Agarwal v .UOI ( 2021) 439 ITRR 1 ( All)(HC), Bagaria Properties and Investment Pvt Ltd v .UOI (2021) 441 ITR 359 ( Cal)(HC) Manoj Jain v .UOI (2021) 441 ITR 359 ( Cal )(HC) , Manoj Jain v. UOI ( 2021) 441 ITR 418 ( Cal)(HC), BRIP Infra Pvt Ltd v.ITO ( 2022)440 ITR 300 ( Raj)(HC), Sudesh Taneja v .ITO ( 2022) 442 ITR 289 ( Raj)(HC), Mon Mohan Kholi v .ACIT ( 2022) 441 ITR 207 ( Delhi)(HC), Palak Khatuja v .UOI( 2021) 438 ITR 622 ( Chhhatishgarh )(HC), Tata Comminications Transformation Service Ltd v .ACIT ( 2022)) 443 ITR 49 ( Bom)(HC), Vellore Institute of Technology v .CBDT ( 2022) 442 ITR 233 ( Mad)(HC)

S. 148: Reassessment – Notice – Section 148 notices issued by the Assessing Officers shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and to be treated as show¬ cause notices in terms of Section 148A(b) of the Act -The Assessing Officers shall, within 30 days from 04-05-2022, provide the information and material relied upon so that the assessees can reply to the notices within two weeks thereafter. Decision to apply to all such notices quashed by High Courts throughout Country [ S. 148A(b), 149,Art , 142 ]

G. Victor Devasahayam v. ACIT (2022) 441 ITR 131 / 284 Taxman 531 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 276C : Offences and prosecutions-Evasion of tax-Alteration of charges based on additional witness-Sanction already obtained-New or fresh sanction is not required-Disputed question of fact of non-issuance of notice by Tax Recovery Officer can be confronted in Trial framing additional charge based on additional evidence-Order passed by Special Sessions Judge, in allowing application was affirmed.[S. 276(1),276C(2), 279(1) ; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,S.216(5)]

Ram Nagar Degree College Barabanki v. PCIT (2022) 448 ITR 161/284 Taxman 118 (All.)(HC)

S. 264 : Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Rejection of revision application merely on the ground that failure to submit reply is quashed and set aside-Matter remanded. [Art. 226]

Cognizant Technology Solutions India (P.) Ltd. v. ITAT (2022) 442 ITR 352 / 284 Taxman 382 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Power to grant stay-Buy back of shares-Stay of further proceedings when appeal against the revision order is pending before the Appellate Tribunal-Revision order was stayed for twelve weeks. [S. 253(7), 254(1), Art. 226, Companies Act, 1956, S.77A]

PCIT v. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. (2021) 133 taxmann.com 213 (P&H)(HC) Editorial : SLP of revenue is dismissed; PCIT v. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. (2022) 284 Taxman 447 (SC)

S. 254(2A) : Appellate Tribunal-Stay-Delay in disposal of appeal is not attributable to assessee-Tribunal can grant extension of stay of demand beyond 365 days in deserving cases. [Art. 226]

PCIT v. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. (2021) 133 taxmann.com 213 (P& H)(HC) Editorial : SLP of revenue is dismissed; PCIT v. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. (2022) 284 Taxman 447 (SC)

S. 254(2A) : Appellate Tribunal-Stay-Delay in disposal of appeal is not attributable to assessee-Tribunal can grant extension of stay of demand beyond 365 days in deserving cases. [Art. 226]

Kashmir Fabric Industries v. ITAT (2022) 284 Taxman 552 (J&K & Ladakha)(HC)

S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Review of order is not permissible-Rejection of application was held to be justified-No appeal lies under section 260A against an order rejecting application-Writ is only remedy. [S. 80IB, 260A, Art. 226]

PCIT v. Syndicate Bank (2021) 133 taxmann.com 215 (Karn.)(HC) Editor : Notice issued in SLP filed by the revenue ;PCIT v. Canara Bank (2022) 284 Taxman 449 (SC)

S. 244A : Refund-Interest on refunds-Excess advance tax paid-Entitle to interest.

Vimal Tyagi (Smt.) v. ITO (2021) 133 taxmann.com 290 (All.) (HC) Editorial : While disposing the SLP direction was issued to dispose the pending appeal expeditiously preferably with in a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order ; Vimal Tyagi (Smt.) v. ITO (2022) 284 Taxman 627 (SC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-During pendency of appeal entire demand was recovered-High Court directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within two months from the date of presentation of copy of the order. [S. 144, 147, 220(6), Art. 226]

Deccan Holdings BV v. ITO (2022) 284 Taxman 300 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 197 : Deduction at source-Certificate for lower rate-Dividend received by a Netherland company from Indian Company-Liable to deduct lower withholding tax rate of 5 per cent instead of 10 per cent-DTAA-India-Netherland. [S. 9(1)(iv), Art. 10, Art. 226]