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. 276C : Offences and prosecutions-Evasion of tax-Alteration of charges based on additional witness-Sanction already obtained-New or fresh sanction is not required-Disputed question of fact of non-issuance of notice by Tax Recovery Officer can be confronted in Trial framing additional charge based on additional evidence-Order passed by Special Sessions Judge, in allowing application was affirmed.[S. 276(1),276C(2), 279(1) ; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,S.216(5)]

G. Victor Devasahayam v. ACIT (2022) 441 ITR 131 / 284 Taxman 531 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 264 : Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Rejection of revision application merely on the ground that failure to submit reply is quashed and set aside-Matter remanded. [Art. 226]

Ram Nagar Degree College Barabanki v. PCIT (2022) 448 ITR 161/284 Taxman 118 (All.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Power to grant stay-Buy back of shares-Stay of further proceedings when appeal against the revision order is pending before the Appellate Tribunal-Revision order was stayed for twelve weeks. [S. 253(7), 254(1), Art. 226, Companies Act, 1956, S.77A]

Cognizant Technology Solutions India (P.) Ltd. v. ITAT (2022) 442 ITR 352 / 284 Taxman 382 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 254(2A) : Appellate Tribunal-Stay-Delay in disposal of appeal is not attributable to assessee-Tribunal can grant extension of stay of demand beyond 365 days in deserving cases. [Art. 226]

PCIT v. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. (2021) 133 taxmann.com 213 (P&H)(HC) Editorial : SLP of revenue is dismissed; PCIT v. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. (2022) 284 Taxman 447 (SC)

S. 254(2A) : Appellate Tribunal-Stay-Delay in disposal of appeal is not attributable to assessee-Tribunal can grant extension of stay of demand beyond 365 days in deserving cases. [Art. 226]

PCIT v. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. (2021) 133 taxmann.com 213 (P& H)(HC) Editorial : SLP of revenue is dismissed; PCIT v. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. (2022) 284 Taxman 447 (SC)

S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Review of order is not permissible-Rejection of application was held to be justified-No appeal lies under section 260A against an order rejecting application-Writ is only remedy. [S. 80IB, 260A, Art. 226]

Kashmir Fabric Industries v. ITAT (2022) 284 Taxman 552 (J&K & Ladakha)(HC)

S. 244A : Refund-Interest on refunds-Excess advance tax paid-Entitle to interest.

PCIT v. Syndicate Bank (2021) 133 taxmann.com 215 (Karn.)(HC) Editor : Notice issued in SLP filed by the revenue ;PCIT v. Canara Bank (2022) 284 Taxman 449 (SC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-During pendency of appeal entire demand was recovered-High Court directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within two months from the date of presentation of copy of the order. [S. 144, 147, 220(6), Art. 226]

Vimal Tyagi (Smt.) v. ITO (2021) 133 taxmann.com 290 (All.) (HC) Editorial : While disposing the SLP direction was issued to dispose the pending appeal expeditiously preferably with in a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order ; Vimal Tyagi (Smt.) v. ITO (2022) 284 Taxman 627 (SC)

S. 197 : Deduction at source-Certificate for lower rate-Dividend received by a Netherland company from Indian Company-Liable to deduct lower withholding tax rate of 5 per cent instead of 10 per cent-DTAA-India-Netherland. [S. 9(1)(iv), Art. 10, Art. 226]

Deccan Holdings BV v. ITO (2022) 284 Taxman 300 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 194J : Deduction at source-Fees for professional or technical services-Payment made for acquiring land for implementation of Bangalore Metro Rail Project-Assessee in default-Failure to deduct tax at source-Matter remanded to the Tribunal to determine whether payments made KIDB included service charges. [S. 201(1), 201(IA)]

Bangalore Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd v. Dy CIT (2022) 284 Taxman 326 / 209 DTR 237 / 324 CTR 378 (Karn.)(HC)