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. 40A(3) : Expenses or payments not deductible-Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits-Payment to supervisors-Disbursement to workers-Payment made by the supervisors had not exceeded Rs. 20,000 to any individual labour-Disallowance is directed to be deleted.[S. 260A, R. 66DD(i), Indian Contract Act, S. 182, 185, 186, 188, 211]
SK. Jaynal Abddin v. CIT (2024) 339 CTR 120 /161 taxmann.com 640 (Cal.) (HC)
S. 276B : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to pay to the credit tax deducted at source-Deposit of tax deducted at source before initiation of prosecution proceedings along with interest-No penalty proceeding is initiated-Criminal proceedings are quashed. [S. 278B]
A.M. Enterprises. v. State of Jharkhand (2024) 338 CTR 497 (Jharkhand) (HC)
S. 264: Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Assessment order passed by Dy. CIT, CPC-CPC only acts as a facilitator to the JAO and merely because the return is processed by CPC the regular jurisdiction of the JAO is not curtailed and he continues to hold the jurisdiction-Order dt. 25th March, 2022 is quashed and set aside-Principal CIT-5 is directed to dispose assessee’s application in accordance with law. [S. 120, 143(1), 143(2), Art. 226]
Sarda Paper Ltd. v. PCIT (2024) 338 CTR 501/ 61 taxmann.com 362 (Bom)(HC)
S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Delay of 224 days-No valid explanation was mentioned in the application-Appeal is dismissed. [S. 254(1)]
PCIT v. Milestone Gears (P) Ltd. (2024) 338 CTR 959/ 162 taxmann.com 472 (HP)(HC)
S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Tribunal is not an authority-Tribunal failed to appreciate the spirit in which the order dt. 23rd Aug., 2022 was passed by the High Court-Delay is condoned-Assessment order is quashed and directed the Assessing Officer to pass the order in accordance with law. [S.80IB(10),119(2)(b), Art. 226]
Bhatewara Associates v. ITAT (2024) 338 CTR 846 / 162 taxmann.com 834 (Bom)(HC)
S. 249 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Form of appeal and limitation-Delay of 115 days in preferring appeal-Appeal was dismissed-Writ was dismissed. [S. 246A, 249(3), Art.226]
Antony Sunny v. CIT (A)(2024) 338 CTR 757 (Ker) (HC) Editorial : Order of single judge is set aside, Antony Sunny v. CIT (A) (2024) 338 CTR 759 (Ker) (HC)
S. 249 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Form of appeal and limitation-Delay of 115 days in preferring appeal-Appeal was dismissed-Writ was dismissed by single judge bench-On appeal the delay was condoned and CIT(A) is directed to decide on merits.[S. 246A, 249(3), Art.226]
Antony Sunny v. CIT (A) (2024) 338 CTR 759 (Ker) (HC) Editorial : Order of single bench is set aside, Antony Sunny v. CIT (A) (2024) 338 CTR 759 (Ker) (HC)
S. 245C : Settlement Commission-Fixing the last date for filing of application-When the Department has extended the last date from 1st Feb., 2021 to 30th Sept., 2021, it can only extend the deadline but cannot introduce a new concept of eligibility as on 1st Feb., 2021 which is not there in the Act itself-Condition imposed by the Notification dt. 28 th September, 2021 of CBDT is invalid and bad in law-Petitioner has the right to approach the Settlement Commission. [S.119(2)(b), 245C (5), Art. 226]
Sar Senapati Santaji Ghorpade Sugar Factory Ltd. v. ACIT (2024) 338 CTR 167 /338 CTR 167 (Bom) (HC)
S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Recovery-Stay-Waiver of pre-deposit of 20 per cent tax-Pendency of appeal before CIT(A)-Installment is granted by PCIT-On writ the assessee has not substantiate genuine hardship by placing materials or evidence-Writ petition is dismissed. [S. 220(6), 246, Art. 226]
Shyam Oil Extractions (P) Ltd. v PCIT (2024) 338 CTR 91 / 159 taxmann.com 555 (Chhattisgarh)(HC)
S. 201 : Deduction at source-Failure to deduct or pay-Contractors-Non-deposit of tax deducted at source and no-refund to the deductee with the interest-Court also directed the managing director to pay cost of 5 lakhs to the petitioner. [S. 194C,203 Art. 226]
Anvil Cables (P) Ltd. v State of Jharkhand (2024) 338 CTR 935 (Jharkhand)(HC)