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 – Passing of order u/s 245D(3) is the discretionary of the Settlement Commission – Revenue cannot insist that the Settlement Commission must pass the order before proceeding further under S.245D(4) of the Act. [S.245D(2)(C), 245D(3), 245D(4)]
PCIT (C) v. ITSC (2019) 263 Taxman 698/ 178 DTR 329 / 310 CTR 46 (Bom.)(HC)
S. 237 : Refunds–Mismatch-Department cannot withhold refund payable to assessee on the ground that the computer system could not rectify the error–Directed to release the refund.
Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2019) 263 Taxman 680 (Bom.)(HC)
S. 226 : Collection and recovery-Stay–Pendency of appeal before CIT (A)- Similar addition was decided in favour of other assessee by the CIT(A) -AO cannot direct the Assessee to deposit 20 percent of tax demanded. [S. 246A]
ARCIL Retail Loan Portfolio001-D-Trust v. PCIT (2019) 263 Taxman 508 (Bom.)(HC)
S. 220 : Collection and recovery–Stay-Pendency of appeal before CIT( A) – AO cannot proceed mechanically in calling upon assessee to remit 20 per cent of demand without examining appropriateness of facts and circumstances of case- Order was set aside. [S. 132, 153A, 220(6)]
Uthangarai Sri Vidya Mandir Educational and Social Welfare Trust v. ACIT (2019) 263 Taxman 422 //(2020)421 ITR 405 (Mad.)(HC)
S. 220 : Collection and recovery–Stay–Appeal pending before CIT(A)-Assessee has given liberty to approach the AO to stay the demand. [S. 220(3), 220(6), 246A]
Veisa Technologies. v. ACIT (2019) 263 Taxman 600// (2020)422 ITR 536 (Mad.)(HC)
S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Relief for income-tax-Arrears or advance of salary–Failure to claim in return–Rectification order passed by the AO is held to be without jurisdiction. [S.89(1)]
Gurmeet Singh Vilkhu v. PCIT (2019) 263 Taxman 636/ 307 CTR 799/ 176 DTR 105 (MP)(HC)
S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-Sanction order indicated non-application of mind to reasons recorded for reopening, therefore, reopening notice was bad in law and quashed. [S.147, 148]
My Car (Pune) (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2019) 263 Taxman 626/ 179 DTR 236 (Bom.)(HC)