Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


PCIT v. Mohak Real Estate (P.) Ltd. (2024) 298 Taxman 362 /336 CTR 808 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Business expenditure-Assessing Officer has applied his mind-Order of revision set aside by the Tribunal is affirmed. [S. 37(1), 57, 143(3), 260A]

PCIT v. Clix Finance India (P.) Ltd. (2024) 298 Taxman 217 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Bad debt-Provision for bad and doubtful debts-Schedule bank-Questions were asked in the course of assessment proceedings-Replies are filed-Revision is held to be not valid-No substantial question of law. [S.36(1)(viia), 260A]

PCIT v. Maheshwari Logistics Ltd. (2024) 298 Taxman 665 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Depreciation-Internal Audit party-Assets were not put to use-Assessment order is neither erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of Revenue-Order of Tribunal is affirmed-No substantial question. of law.[S.32, 260A]

Paville Projects (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2024) 298 Taxman 746/337 CTR 880 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Paville Projects (P.) Ltd (2023) 293 Taxman 38/ 453 ITR 447/332 CTR 28/ 224 DTR 185 (SC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-Cost of improvement-Cost of acquisition-Paid to shareholders under Family Settlement-Relinquishment of rights-Encumbrance charges as cost of improvement-Revision order is affirmed-Review petition is dismissed. [45, 48, 50A, 55(1))b), Art. 136]

ITD v. Dattaraj Vassudeva Salgaoncar (2024) 298 Taxman 778 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Prosecution-Appeal against acquittal undr code of 1973-High Court has power or jurisdiction to condone delay in filing an application seeking leave to appeal against an acquittal or in entertaining an appeal against acquittal under Code of 1973 [S. 279, Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, 378, Limitation Act, 1963, S. 5, 24, Art. 14, 136, 226]

PCIT v. Akruti City Ltd. (2024) 298 Taxman 1 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Akruti City Ltd (2018) 94 taxmann.com 725 (Bom)(HC)

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Delay of 286 days-Order was passed by Prothonotary & Senior Master, rejecting revenue’s appeal for non-removal of office objections-All notice of motions were dismissed by High Court-SLP of Revenue is dismissed. [Art 136]

Indian National Congress v. Dy. CIT (2024) 298 Taxman 630 /463 ITR 182/337 CTR 802 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 254(2A): Appellate Tribunal-Stay-Political parties-Denial of exemption-Rejection of stay by the Tribunal-Tribunal is justified in rejecting the stay application. [S. 13A(2), 226, Art. 226]

Gujarat State Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2024) 298 Taxman 488 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Duties-Tribunal remanded matter back to Assessing Officer for proper verification and adjudication and decide same as per law-Failure to consider earlier order of Tribunal-Matter remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration. [S.14A, 260A]

R.J. Williams v. ACIT (2024) 298 Taxman 313 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 245C : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Failure to make true and full disclosure of income and its sources-Rejection of appllication is affirmed. [S. 132, Art. 226]

Tupperware India (P.) Ltd v. CIT (IT) (2024) 298 Taxman 25 / 465 ITR 777 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 244A : Refunds-Interest on refunds-Lease rent on the basis of actual production days-Deducted TDS on higher on the basis of anticipating tax liability-Excess TDS paid is directed to be refund with interest.[S. 195, Art. 226, 265]