1

Commissioner (A) is not empowered to enhance income a new source of income vide 82ITR 9Trib) 176
1

It is assessee’s choice to select a method for determining FMV of shares vide 81 ITR (Trib) (SN) 78
1

No TP adjustment of trade receivables in case of a debt-free company vide 81ITR (Trib) (SN) 94
1

To accord registration as a charitable institution under income tax dominant purpose must be charitable and satisfies the conditions laid down us 2(15) vide 426ITR108 despite having non charitable ancillary objects meant to achieve the dominant purpose
1

Transactions with dubious entities is reason enough for case reopening vide 421ITR624

The 20% payment condition for grant of stay is no hard and fast rule

ByCA Gopal Nathani

Sep 30, 2023

In the matters of recovery of demands the Telangana High Court in [2023] 457 ITR 560 (Telangana) taking note of Supreme Court decision in [2018] 12 ITR-OL 334 (SC) held that It is trite law that when an Income-tax authority like AO , CIT, CIT (A) exercises jurisdiction under section 220(6) of the Act, he exercises quasi-judicial power.

While exercising quasi-judicial powers, the authority is not bound or confined by Departmental instructions. He has to apply his mind which must be reflected in the order.

Any order imposing 20% condition in defiance of this maxim would not be in accordance with law and shall call for challenge.

The CBDT should issue a circular instruction stating that their previous circulars dated 29 feb 16 and July 31 2017 are no hard and fast rule citing and that AO should apply his own mind to each case demand resolution.