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-Application-Full and true disclosure-Opportunity of being heard-Settlement Commission directed to get Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report-Order was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing and without waiting for FSL report-Order of Settlement Commission was set aside-Directed to pass the order after getting FSL report and an opportunity of hearing. [S. 245C, 245D(4), Art. 226]

Gupta Trademart (P) Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2021) 439 ITR 407/205 DTR 401 / 322 CTR 477 / .( 2022] 285 Taxman 632 (Raj.) (HC) Rajendra Gupta v. Dy.CIT (2021) 439 ITR 4007/ 205 DTR 401 / 322 CTR 477// .( 2022] 285 Taxman 632 (Raj.) (HC)

S. 245D : Settlement Commission-Procedure-Application-Directed to file additional income-Entitle to immunity from penalty and prosecution. [S. 153CA, 245C, 245D(4), Art. 226]

P. Suman (Smt.) v. CIT (2021) 205 DTR 385 / 322 CTR 655 / 130 taxmann.com 249/( 2022) 440 ITR 214 /285 Taxman 587 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 245C : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Conditions-Manner of acquiring the income had been explained-Additional income was disclosed-Order of settlement Commission rejection of application was set aside-Directed the Interim board to decide the matter in accordance with law. [S. 56(2)(vii), 132(4A), 245D, 292C, Art. 226]

Indu Srivastava v. ITSC (2021) 206 DTR 265 / 323 CTR 174 /( 2022) 440 ITR 280 / 286 Taxman 52 (All.)(HC)

S. 245 : Refund-Set off of refunds against tax remaining payable-Stay of demand-Adjustment of refund without giving an intimation in writing is held to be bad in law. [Art. 226]

Jet Privilege (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2021) 205 DTR 145 / 322 CTR 684 / 131 taxmann.com 119 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 245 : Refund-Set off of refunds against tax remaining payable-Adjustment refunds in excess of 20% of outstanding is contrary to instruction No 1914 of 21-3-1996-Assessing Officer was directed to refund amount adjusted in excess of 20 per cent of disputed demand. [S. 220, Art. 226]

Eko India Financial Services (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2021) 205 DTR 113 / 322 CTR 201 / 283 Taxman 584 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 237 : Refunds-Commercial establishment-Appeal was decided in favour-Directed to refund the amount with interest with in four weeks-If there are no provision for payment of interest then the interest shall became payable at 12 % p.a. on the amount due after expiry of four weeks. [Wealth-tax Act, 1957, S. 2(ea)(i), 34A, Art. 226]

Mohandas Isardas Chatlani v. ITO (2021) 439 ITR 577 / 205 DTR 102 / 322 CTR 365 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default- Waiver of interest-Rejection of application without giving an opportunity of hearing was held to be not justified-Matter remanded. [S. 220(2A), Art. 226]

G. Soman v. ACIT (2021) 439 ITR 755 / 204 DTR 355 / 322 CTR 95 / 131 taxmann.com 170 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Adjustment of demand-Pendency of appeal before CIT(A)-Department is entitle to seek pre-deposit of only 20 per-cent of the disputed demand-Directed to refund the amount adjusted in excess of 20 percent of the disputed demand. [S. 245, Art. 226]

Skyline Engineering Contractors (India) (P) Ltd. Dy. CIT (2021) 206 DTR 60 / 322 CTR 745 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 201 : Deduction at source-Failure to deduct or pay-Conveyance allowance-Additional allowance-Development Officers-Liable to deduct tax at source. [S. 10(14), 192, 264, Art. 226]

Life Insurance Corporation of India v. ITO(TDS) (2021) 205 DTR 429 / 322 CTR 432 / 283 Taxman 573 (Orissa)(HC)

S. 197 : Deduction at source-Certificate for lower rate-Interest income-Cryptic order-Assessing Officer cannot ignore the mandate of Rule 28AA-Order was set aside. [S.194A, Art. 226 ]

Hero Solar Wind Energy (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2021) 205 DTR 230 / 322 CTR 254 / 283 Taxman 53 (Delhi)(HC) Hero Wind Energy (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2021) 205 DTR 230 / 322 CTR 254 / 283 Taxman 53 (Delhi)(HC)