S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Provision of interest twice-Bonfide mistake-Deletion of penalty is justified.
PCIT v. Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd. (2023) 290 Taxman 77 (Guj.)(HC)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Provision of interest twice-Bonfide mistake-Deletion of penalty is justified.
PCIT v. Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd. (2023) 290 Taxman 77 (Guj.)(HC)S. 268A : Appeal-Tax effect less than the monetary limit of Rs 1 crore-Appeal of revenue was dismissed [S. 260A]
CIT v. Flow Link Systems (P.) Ltd. (2023) 290 Taxman 447 (Mad.)(HC)S. 264 : Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Appeal not filed-Rejection of revision petition is held to be not valid-Commissioner is directed to hear the petition on merits. [S. 250, Art. 226]
Vikas Nagelia v. CIT (2023) 290 Taxman 258 (Cal.)(HC)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Revision was done twice-Revision for the third time is held to be not valid. [S. 143(3), 153A]
PCIT (C) v. Padma Kumar Jain (2023) 455 ITR 679 / 290 Taxman 394 (Jhakahd)(HC)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Unexplained investments-Assessing Officer has not enquired into any documentary evidence-Revision was held to be justified. [S. 69]
Himanshu Kukreja v. PCIT (2023) 290 Taxman 453 (Uttarakhand) (HC)S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Writ-Statutory remedy-Alternative remedy-Writ petition was pending for 13 years-Affirming the order of a single judge division bench held that as a proposition of law, it cannot be countenanced that once a writ petition is entertained and admitted, same can’t be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy at the time of hearing. [Art. 226]
Mangali Mahinag v. Sushila Sahu (2023) 290 Taxman 563 (Chhattisgarh)(HC)S. 234B : Interest-Advance tax-Interest would be computed up to date of admission of application by Settlement Commission under section 245D(1) and not up to date of order of settlement Commission under section 245D(4)-Natural justice-Order was passed without giving an opportunity to the Revenue-Order of by High Court was quashed and the matter was remanded to decide writ petition afresh [S. 245D(1) 245D(4)]
UOI v. G.M. Foods (2023) 452 ITR 100/290 Taxman 446 / 223 DTR 239/ 331 CTR 475 (SC) Editorial: Arising out of order of High Court in. G.M. Foods v. IT& WT Settlement Commission (2015) 58 taxmann.com 16 /231 Taxman 793 (Cal)(HC)S. 194J : Deduction at source-Fees for professional or technical services-Salary-Hospital-Retainership fees paid to doctors-Provisions of section 194J are applicable not provision of section 192 of the Act. [S. 192]
CIT, TDS v. Mewar Hospital (P.) Ltd. (2023) 290 Taxman 389 (Raj.)(HC)S. 153A : Assessment-Search or requisition-No incriminating material was found-Deletion of addition by the Tribunal was justified. [S. 132, 69B]
PCIT v. Suman Agarwal (2023) 290 Taxman 301 (Delhi)(HC)S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Violation of the principle of natural justice-Mandatory to give the minimum time of seven days-Reply of assesee was not considered-Order and notice was set aside. [S. 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]
Nidhi Bindal v. ITO (2023) 290 Taxman 306 (Delhi)(HC)