| Income Tax Act, 1961 |
Sec. 143(1) & Sec. 154 |
Yadvendra Dhabhai vs. Income-tax Officer |
Click Here |
Rejection of a rectification application under Sec. 154 was unjustified because the disallowance of late PF/ESI deposits was a highly debatable issue subjudice before the Supreme Court, especially given the COVID-19 relaxations by the EPFO. |
| Income Tax Act, 1961 |
Rule 8D(2)(ii) & Rule 8D(2)(iii) |
Dalmia Bharat Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-19(1) |
Click Here |
Interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) was deleted since the assessee’s own interest-free funds far exceeded its investments. However, the administrative expense disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) was upheld. |
| Income Tax Act, 1961 |
Sec. 147 & Sec. 148 |
Manoj Kumar Soman vs. Circle |
Click Here |
When a case is reopened based on Form 26AS data and the total receipts are treated as taxable income in an ex-parte assessment, the assessee cannot be denied the corresponding TDS credit reflected in that Form 26AS. |
| Income Tax Act, 1961 |
Sec. 148 & Sec. 139 |
Commissioner of Income-tax – International Taxation vs. Dipankar Mohan Ghosh |
Click Here |
The AO was directed to treat a return filed under Sec. 148 as a regular Sec. 139 return to allow the full credit/refund of prepaid taxes on a property sale, which the assessee (a widow) delayed filing while awaiting an AAR decision. |
| Income Tax Act, 1961 |
Sec. 151 |
Jayanta Ghosh vs. Income-tax Officer, Maniktala |
Click Here |
A 430-day delay in filing an appeal was condoned because the sudden death of the assessee’s authorized representative created a communication breakdown in the faceless regime. This constituted a force majeure event for the digitally illiterate assessee. |
| Income Tax Act, 1961 |
Income Estimation (Books not produced) |
Md. Babar Ali vs. Income-tax Officer |
Click Here |
Where a wholesale medicine trader failed to produce books of account, and lower authorities ad-hocly estimated high profits without citing comparable data, the ITAT estimated the net profit at a realistic 4% based on past business history. |
| Income Tax Act, 1961 |
Sec. 245 & Sec. 220(6) |
Bothra Shipping Services (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India |
Click Here |
The Revenue cannot adjust an outstanding tax refund against a disputed tax demand under Sec. 245 while a stay application under Sec. 220(6) is actively pending before the CIT(A). The refund must be released with interest. |
