Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


CIT v. Doshi Estates (2020) 274 Taxman 475 / ( 2021 ) 202 DTR 297 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-No material to support the finding of Commissioner-Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 80IB(10)]

Sandeep Kumar Jain v. PCIT (2020) 274 Taxman 172 (All.)(HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Duties-Condonation of delay of 92 days-Dismissed on the ground that averments made in application was not supported by an affidavit-Directed to file fresh application with in fifteen days of passing of the order-Order of Tribunal is set aside. [S. 253(5), 260A]

Rathna Stores P. Ltd. v. CIT (2020) 274 Taxman 489 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Duties-Condonation of delay of 1333 days-Affidavit was filed explaining the delay-Matter remanded to the Tribunal-Cost of Rs.25000 was levied [S. 253 (5), 260A]

Gopal Yadav Selvakumar v. ITO (2020) 274 Taxman 492 (Mad.) (HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Duties-Grounds of reassessment was not adjudicated-Matter remanded to the Tribunal. [S. 147]

G. Subramaniam v. ITSC (2020) 274 Taxman 437 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 245D : Settlement Commission-Application for rectification of mistake was pending but no orders had been passed-Settlement Commission was directed to pass an order with in four weeks from the receipt of the order-Writ is held to be premature. [Art. 226]

Krishna Venkata Ramanna Shetty v. ITSC (2020) 274 Taxman 253 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 245D : Settlement Commission-Application-Rejection application only on the ground that short payment of tax is held to be not justified-Interest of justice the matter remanded to Settlement commission to decide on merits. [S.245C, Art, 226]

Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. DCIT (2020) 274 Taxman 233 (Bom.) (HC)

S. 245 : Refund-Set off of refunds against tax remaining payable-Stay of recovery-As long as stay against recovery order issued by competent Appellate authority, Tribunal or Court is in operation, it would not be open for department to enforce recoveries through aid of section 245-Department cannot straightway be permitted to provisionally attach refund amount for current year on ground that in final assessment, demands are likely to be confirmed in case deposits already made for current year by assessee are sufficient [S. 281B, Art. 226]

L.S. Cable and system Ltd v. UOI (2020) 274 Taxman 4 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 241 : Refund-Power to withhold in certain cases-Rectification application-Respondents were to be directed to dispose of petitioner’s rectification application within six weeks by way of reasoned order and respondent was also to pay petitioner’s refund within three weeks thereafter. [S. 143(3), 154(8), 244A, Art, 226]

E.K. Hajee Mohamed Meera Sahib & Sons v. CCIT (2020) 274 Taxman 432 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 234B : Interest-Advance tax-Waiver of interest-Bonafide belief based on the basis of judgements of Tribunal or High Courts at the time of filing of return-Matter remanded to CBDT to consider if the assessee is able to show existence of any s judgment of Tribunal/High Court though not necessarily of jurisdictional Tribunal/High Court, no interest was to levied upon assessee. [S.80HHC, 119, Art, 226]

Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Chit Funds (P) Ltd. v. PCIT (2020) 274 Taxman 45 /(2021) 322 CTR 824/ 208 DTR 89 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 225 : Collection and recovery-Stay of demand-Attachment-Once the demand of 20 % of tax in dispute is paid the attachment order passed u/s 226 (3)was unjustified and was set aside. [S. 220, 226 (3), Art. 226]