S. 245D : Settlement Commission-Procedure-Application-Survey-Principle of natural justice not violated-Court cannot substitute findings of Settlement Commission-Order of Settlement Commission affirmed. [S. 133A, 245C, 245D(4), ITSC R. 9, Art. 226]
PCIT v. Settlement Commission (IT and WT) (2021) 438 ITR 258 / 206 CTR 33 / 322 CTR 583 (Cal.)(HC)
Digest of case laws
Online digest of latest case laws
This Digest of case laws is prepared by KSA Legal and AIFTP from judgements reported in BCAJ, CTR, DTR, ITD, ITR, ITR (Trib), Chamber's Journal, SOT, Taxman, TTJ, BCAJ, ACAJ, www.itatonline.org and other journals
Click here to download the pdf versions of the Digest of case laws S. 245D : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-twenty seven issues accepted by the assessee-Writ challenging only one issue is held to be not maintainable.[S. 245D(4), 245I, Art. 226]
Orchid Pharma Ltd. v. ITSC (2021) 438 ITR 427 / 208 DTR 369/ 283 Taxman 507 (2022) 325 CTR 423 (Mad.)(HC)S. 245C : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-search and seizure-Undisclosed income-Mala fide intention-Failure to disclose true and full disclosure-Settlement commission ought to have rejected the application. [S. 132, 153A, 245D(4), Art. 226]
CIT v. ITSC (2021) 437 ITR 52/ 207 DTR 393/ 323 CTR 675 (Mad.)(HC)S. 245C : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Income and source must be disclosed-Non-Co-operation of assessee-Rejection of application was held to be justified. [Art. 226]
Arun Mammen v. ITSC (2021) 438 ITR 378 (Mad.)(HC) Kandathil M. Mammen v. ITSC (2021) 438 ITR 378 (Mad.)(HC). Editorial : Decision of the single judge Kandathil M. Mammen v. ITSC(2022)446 ITR 595 (Mad)( HC) Arun Mammen v. ITSC(2022)446 ITR 595 (Mad)( HC)S. 245 : Refund-Set off of refunds against tax remaining payable-Stay of recovery proceedings-Order adjusting refund against tax dues not justified-Unconditional stay of recovery proceedings granted. [S. 226, Art. 226]
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2021) 438 ITR 357 / 206 DTR 108/ 322 CTR 787 (Guj.)(HC)S. 244A : Refund-Interest on refunds-Assessment-Reassessment-Fresh assessment-Order giving effect-Assessing Officer not passing order giving effect within time specified-Assessee entitled to additional interest-Directed to compute the interest with in eight weeks-Failure to comply the direction the Department was to pay to the assessee extra interest, at the rate of 1.5 per cent. per month to be recovered personally from the erring officials of the Department. [S. 2(8), 2(40) 153 (5), 244A(IA), 254, Art. 226]
Wipro Ltd. v. JCIT (2021) 438 ITR 581 / 205 DTR 434/ 322CTR 757 /130 taxmann . com 84 (Karn.)(HC)S. 241A : Refund-Withholding of refund in certain cases-Order must be in writing and prior approval is mandatory-Withholding of refund without recording of reasons was held to be not valid. [S. 143(1), 244A, Art. 226]
Mcnally Bharat Engineering Company Ltd. v. ACIT (2021) 437 ITR 265 / 282 Taxman 427 / 205 DTR 178 / 322 CTR 329 (Cal.)(HC)S. 239 : Refund-Limitation-Excess advance tax deposited for the assessment year 2000-1-Refund claim was made in the year 2021-Stale claim-Rejection of claim is held to be justified. [Art. 226]
Harbux Singh Sidhu v. Dept. of Income tax (2021) 282 Taxman 118 / 204 DTR 193 / 321 CTR 709 (Delhi)(HC).Editorial : SLP of assessee dismissed , Harbux Singh Sidhu v. Dept. of Income tax ( 2022) 443 ITR 1 (St) (SC)/ ( 2022) 286 Taxman 94 (SC)S. 234D : Interest on excess refund-Order of Assessment on 31-3-2006-Reassessment order on 26-12-2008-Interest could not be levied. [S. 2(40), 143(3), 147, 153A]
CIT v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2021) 438 ITR 301/(2022) 284 Taxman 598 (Mad.) (HC)S. 234B : Interest-Advance tax-Non-Resident-Entire tax was deductible at source-Not permissible to charge interest. [S. 9(1)(1)]
CIT(IT) v. ZTE Corporation (2021) 130 taxmann.com 128 (Delhi)(HC) Editorial : SLP of revenue dismissed, CIT (IT) v. ZTE Corporation (2021) 282 Taxman 304 (SC)/ Review petition dismissed,CIT (IT) v. ZTE Corporation (2024) 296 Taxman 571 (SC)