Direct Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 17 To 23 March 2024

Delhi High Court Pre-Deposit Of 20% Demand Is Not Precondition For Consideration Of Stay Application During Pendency Of First Appeal: Delhi High Court Case Title: National Association Of Software And Services Companies (NASSCOM) Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) Circle 2 (1) The Delhi High Court has held that a 20% pre-deposit demand is not a precondition for consideration of a stay application during the pendency of the first appeal. Failure Of AO To Take Concrete Steps To Ascertain The Genuineness And Creditworthiness Of Transactions: Delhi High Court Case Title: PCIT Versus M/S Paramount Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. The Delhi High Court has held that the AO has not taken any concrete steps to ascertain the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions. Variance In Allowable Deductions Doesn't Amount To Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income: Delhi High Court Case Title: Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. ICICI Bank Ltd The Delhi High Court has held that the assessee cannot be said to furnish inaccurate particulars of income merely for variance in allowable deductions. Abhisar Buildwell Judgment Can't Be Construed To Be An Authority To Override Mandate Of Section 245-I: Delhi High Court Case Title: Orchid Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus PCIT The Delhi High Court has held that the judgement of Abhisar Buildwell passed by the Supreme Court cannot be construed to be an authority to override the mandate of Section 245-I of the Income Tax Act. Madras High Court Tax Recovery Officer Cannot Declare Sale Made By Assessee In Favour Of 3rd Party As Void: Madras High Court Case Title: K.N.Subramaniam Versus PCIT Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 116 The Madras High Court has held that a tax recovery officer cannot declare a sale made by the assessee in favour of a third party void if he finds that the property of the assessee was transferred by the assessee to a third party with an intention to defraud the revenue. Wilful Failure To Furnish Return As Per Sec 139(1) Is Only Criterion For Initiation Of Prosecution U/s 276CC: Madras High Court Case Title: Vinayagam Sabarisanthanakrishnan verses ACIT Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 118 The Madras High Court recently highlighted that provision of Section 278E of the Income tax Act brings in a statutory presumption regarding the existence of a culpable mental state. Assessing Officers Are Not Governed By Strict Rules Of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 In Case Of Assessment Proceedings: Madras High Court Case Title: M/s.LKS Gold House Private Limited Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 120 The Madras High Court has held that assessing officers are not governed by the strict rules of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 10% of Demand Already Paid By Assessee, Madras High Court Allows Cooperative Bank's Writ Appeal By Waiving 10% Pre-Deposit Case Title: The Salem Urban Co-operative Bank limited Versus The Income Tax Officer (TDS Ward) Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 122 The Madras High Court has waived the condition of payment of a 10% pre-deposit as the 10% demand was already paid by the assessee. Karnataka High Court Average Income Is To Be Considered If Variations Found In Income Tax Returns Filed By Claimant: Karnataka High Court Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 141 Case Title: Jayashree AND Mahaningappa & Others The Karnataka High Court has held that if income tax returns are available the same should be considered as best a piece of evidence and if variations are found in the income tax returns, considered for different assessment years, it would be appropriate to consider the average income of three assessment years to arrive at the annual stable income of the claimant seeking compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. Allahabad High Court S.144B Income Tax | Burden to Provide Registered Email Shifts On Assessee Only If It Can't Be Obtained From ITR/Portal/MCA Website: Allahabad HC Case Title: Grs Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Lko. Thru. Director Shri Ganga Charan Rajput vs. Union Of India Thru. Its Secy. (Revenue) Ministry Of Finance Govt. Of India Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 188 The Allahabad High Court has held that the provision requiring the assesee to provide his “registered email address” to the income tax authorities under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is residuary in nature.

Direct Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 17 To 23 March 2024

Mariya Paliwala

Tags