Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Yogesh Roshanlal Gupta v. CBDT (2022) 442 ITR 31 / 212 DTR 313 / 326 CTR 34 / 286 Taxman 95 (SC) Editorial : Order of Gujarat High Court is modified, Yogesh Roshanlal Gupta v. CBDT (2021) 432 ITR 91 /199 DTR 81/ 319 CTR 389 / 280 Taxman 278 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 191 : Tax paid under the Scheme shall not be refunded-Paid two instalments- Default in paying final instalment- Seeking extension of time to pay third instalment-Request rejected by High Court-Direction that assessee be given benefit of amounts deposited towards first two instalments while reckoning tax liability of assessee after revised assessment. [S. 183, 185, Art. 226]

Dadha Pharma (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2022) 442 ITR 93 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 2(5B) : Charge of tax-Financial company-Transfer of distribution business to a new company-Matter remanded-Interpretation of taxing statute-Charging provision must be construed strictly. [S. 2(7)]

Raghunandan Enterprise v. ACIT (2022)442 ITR 460 / 211 DTR 345 / 328 CTR 99(Guj.)(HC)

S. 281B : Provisional attachment-Power must not be exercised in an arbitrary manner-Recovery proceedings against assignee of Partner’s Share in firm-Provisional Attachment Of Property Of Firm is not valid-Interpretation of taxing statute-The golden rule of interpretation of statutes is that the statute has to be construed according to its plain, literal and grammatical meaning, unless it leads to absurdity. [Indian Partnership Act, 1932, S. 29]

S. P. Velayutham v. ACIT (2022) 442 ITR 74/ 215 DTR 265/327 CTR 779 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 276C : Offences and prosecutions-Wilful attempt to evade tax-Self assessment-Default in payment of tax on time-Paying tax in instalments-No mala fide intention to evade tax. [S. 140A(3), 226, 276(2)]

Union Bank of India v. Add. CIT (TDS) (2022) 442 ITR 194 / 211 DTR 308 / 325 CTR 505 / 286 Taxman 353 (SC)

S. 271C : Penalty-Failure to deduct at source-Interest on fixed deposits-Agra Development Authority-Statutory Body-Not liable to deduct tax at source-Levy of penalty is not valid. [S. 194A(3)(iii)(f), Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning And Development Act, 1973]

Ramco Cements Ltd. v. NFAC (2022)442 ITR 279/ 327 CTR 231 /215 DTR 199 / 139 taxmann.com 89 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Faceless penalty scheme-rejection of request for personal hearing-Order set aside. [S. 144B, 274, Art. 226]

Karanja Terminal and Logistic Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2022) 442 ITR 400 / 211 DTR 161 / 325 CTR 392 / 287 Taxman 410 Bom.)(HC)

S. 264 : Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Binding precedent-Subordinate Authority to follow the ruing of Higher Authority-Rejection of revision petition on ground that appeal pending in High Court on similar issue against order of Tribunal-Held to be not proper-Matter remanded for de novo consideration. [S. 260, Art. 226]

Virtusa Consulting Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 442 ITR 385 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Order passed after enquiry-Order not erroneous-Free trade zone-Not necessary to maintain separate books of accounting for export unit-Circular and instructions-Binding on Income-Tax Authorities. [S. 10A, 119]

PCIT v. Michelin India Pvt. Ltd. (2022) 442 ITR 268 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 254(2A) : Appellate Tribunal-Stay-Delay in proceedings not attributable to assessee-Tribunal has the power to grant stay even beyond period of 365 days. [S. 254(1)]

CIT v. RNS Infrastructure Ltd. (2022) 442 ITR 417 / 286 Taxman 509 (Karn.)(HC)/Editorial : SLP of Revenue is dismissed , CIT (Central) v. RNS Infrastructure Ltd. (2024) 300 Taxman 101 (SC)

S. 245D : Settlement Commission-Limitation-Delay in passing order not due to assessee-Delay could be condoned. [S. 245D(4), 245HA(1)(iv)]