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. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Jurisdictional issue– Reassessment–CIT(A) has not decided–Deemed to have been decided against-Rule 27 of the Income Tax Tribunal Rules would entitle a respondent who has neither preferred an appeal nor cross objections to relief on a point decided in favour of the appellant by the lower appellate authority-Order of Tribunal, quashing of reassessment and also on merit is affirmed. [S.80IA, 147, 148, R. 27]

CIT v. India Cements Ltd. (2019) 181 DTR 105/ (2020) 312 CTR 168 / 424 ITR 410/ 274 Taxman 123(Mad.)(HC)

S. 251 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals) – Power of enhancement-Powers cannot be restricted only to issues raised in appeal before him-Enhancement is held to be valid.

S.D. Traders v. CIT (2019) 267 Taxman 631/ (20200 187 DTR 199/ 313 CTR 445 (All.)(HC)

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)–Duties–Must pass a speaking order on merits by expressing reasons and finding in support of the conclusion–Matter remanded to the CIT(A) for passing speaking order. [Art. 226]

Ajji Basha v. CIT (2019) 267 Taxman 545 /(2020) 193 DTR 438(Mad.)(HC)

S. 244 : Refund-Interest on refund-Disabled retired Army Personnel -Tax deducted at source on disability pension-Delay in claim for refund not attributable to assesse-CBDT circular is not applicable- Department is liable to refund tax recovered at source with Interest.- Suo motou contempt proceedings threatened against CIT & PCIT, if refund is not granted with in 30 days [S.119(2)(b), 237, Art.226]

Colonel Ashwani Kumar Ram Singh (Retd.) v. PCIT (2019) 419 ITR 269 /(2020) 187 DTR 410/ 313 CTR 800 / 269 Taxman 522 (MP)(HC) Colonel Madan Gopal Singh Nagi (Retd) v. CIT (2019) 419 ITR 143 /(2020) 187 DTR 405/ 313 CTR 795/ 269 Taxman 522 (MP)(HC) . www.itatonline.org

S. 241A : Withholding of refund in certain cases-Tax deduction at source – Merely because a notice was issued u/s 143(2), it was not a sufficient ground to withhold refund-Withhold refund and the order denying refund on this ground alone would be laconic. [S.143(ID), 143(2), 197, Art.226]

Maple Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. (2019) 184 DTR 408 / (2020) 312 CTR 141 / 420 ITR 258/ 268 Taxman 138 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 241A : Withholding of refund in certain cases–Loss return AO cannot withhold refund merely because in immediately preceding assessment year the assessee has declared a positive income. [S.143(1), 143(ID)]

Vodafone Idea Ltd. (2019) 267 Taxman 603 / 183 DTR 177 / 311 CTR 385/ (2020)421 ITR 253 (Bom.) (HC)

S. 241A : Withholding of refund in certain cases–AO cannot withhold refund without processing the return as well as revised return u/s. 143(1)–Show cause notice to withhold the refund was quashed-Withholding the refund is without authority of law and liable to be set aside.[ S.143(1)]

Tata Communications Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2019) 267 Taxman 423 /182 DTR 249/311 CTR 1 (Bom.)(HC) Tata Communications Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2019) 181 DTR 9/310 CTR 805/ (2020) 425 ITR 279 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 237 : Refunds – Amounts of tax in dispute was collected when the appeal was pending-Appeal tax demand was reduced – Application for remand was not acted upon-High Court directed the AO to refund the amount with interests witin period of four weeks.[ S.254(1), Art.226

Narayanan Chettiar Industries v. ITO (2019) 267 Taxman 426 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 237 : Refunds–Tax deducted at source–Refund should not be withheld due to some reason of technical glitch, system fails, mismatch of TDS etc-Concerned AO must manually should calculate the refund and release the refund-The computer system and auto generation or any difficulty in doing so in a particular case, cannot override the correct legal position. [Art. 226]

Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. CIT (2019) 267 Taxman 405 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 237 : Refunds–Tax deduction at source-Refund cannot be with held on account of computer glitch at Central Processing Center-Department was to be directed to release refund with statutory interest after manually computing same.-Court also observed that “We expect the department to address this larger issue so that similar disputes do not have to travel to the High Court for resolution.” [Art. 226]

Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. CIT (2019) 267 Taxman 408 (Bom.)(HC)