Section 144C(2) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.275

Section 144C(2) falls under section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 275 (Reference to Dispute Resolution Panel) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 275 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 144C(2) is Sir Kikabhai Premchand v. CIT (116 ITR 425), cited in 27 of the 34 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 144C(2)

Sir Kikabhai Premchand v. CIT
116 ITR 425 · 1979 · High Court
27
citing judgments

A person cannot enter into a contract with themselves, meaning no profit or loss can arise from self-dealing. This principle applies to the computation of profits under domestic income tax law but does not necessarily extend to profit attribution under tax treaties for permanent establishments.

(India) (P.) Ltd. v. ITO
87 Taxmann.com 251 · 2017 · High Court
25
citing judgments

Interest on outstanding receivables arising during business is considered an international transaction under the definition of 'capital financing'.

Smt. Saroj Aggarwal v. CIT
156 ITR 497 · 1985 · Supreme Court
20
citing judgments

Taxation provisions should be interpreted equitably and justly, avoiding hyper-technicality. Courts should view facts naturally, considering circumstances and drawing inferences that promote justice and equity when there are multiple interpretations and no dishonest motive.

Jitendra Mohan v. ITO
11 SOT 594 · 2007 · ITAT
18
citing judgments

The term 'property' in Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act has the widest amplitude, including any right a person holds in a capital asset. The date of allotment of a property, rather than the date of possession or conveyance deed, is relevant for computing the holding period for capital gains.

PCIT v. Vembu Vaidyanathan
108 Taxmann.com 339 · 2019 · Supreme Court
13
citing judgments

A Special Leave Petition filed by the Income Tax Department against a decision concerning the computation of capital gains or related issues was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

Spencers & Co. Ltd. 132TTJ 468 (Mum) Ms. Neeta A Patel v. ITO
137 TTJ 307 · 2011 · ITAT
13
citing judgments

A right to a capital asset can exist even without formal ownership through a registered conveyance deed, such as the right derived from an agreement to allot a flat from a builder. This right itself constitutes a capital asset.

CIT v. A Suresh Rao
223 Taxmann 228 · 2014 · High Court
10
citing judgments

The period for which a capital asset is 'held' by an assessee, for the purpose of computing capital gains, is determined by the date when the assessee acquired rights over the asset, not necessarily the date of registration or possession.

Nirmal Kumar Seth v. CIT
17 Taxmann.com 127 · 2012 · High Court
8
citing judgments
Transwitch India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
21 Taxmann.com 257 · 2012 · High Court
8
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 144C(2)

India Metal One Steel Plate Processing Private Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1300/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1299 & 1300/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 M/S. India Metal One Steel Plate The Deputy Commissioner Of Processing Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax, Prestige Palladium Bayan, 6Th Floor, Corporate Circle 3(3), Door No. 129 To 140, Greams Road, 121, M.G. Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 006. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aacci5959F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.06.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 5, Chennai, Both Dated 01.02.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2015-16. Besides Challenging The Issue On Merits, The Assessee Has Mainly Challenged The Ex-Parte Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) By Raising A Specific Ground In Both The Appeals.

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, JCIT
Section 143(3)

India Metal One Steel Plate Processing Private Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1299/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1299 & 1300/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 M/S. India Metal One Steel Plate The Deputy Commissioner Of Processing Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax, Prestige Palladium Bayan, 6Th Floor, Corporate Circle 3(3), Door No. 129 To 140, Greams Road, 121, M.G. Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 006. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aacci5959F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.06.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 5, Chennai, Both Dated 01.02.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2015-16. Besides Challenging The Issue On Merits, The Assessee Has Mainly Challenged The Ex-Parte Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) By Raising A Specific Ground In Both The Appeals.

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, JCIT
Section 143(3)