Section 221(1)

Section 221(1) — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 221(1), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• Mrs. Kannammal v ITO High CourtHelps taxpayer
  The stay order just says 'pay 20% as per Board's circular'. Is that a decision?
  No. Stay applications must be decided by reference to prima facie case, financial stringency and balance of convenience, and communicated as a speaking order. CBDT circulars are guidelines and cannot substitute those basic tests.
• Devarsh Pravinbhai Patel v ACIT High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  My employer deducted tax from my salary but never paid it over. Can the department recover it from me and adjust my refunds?
  No. The Gujarat High Court held that the department cannot deny the benefit of tax deducted at source by the employer, and directed that credit be given for the relevant years. It followed its own Division Bench decision in Sumit Devendra Rajani, which construed section 205 and agreed with the Bombay and Gauhati High Courts that where the deductee produces Form 16A the credit must be given and a demand cannot be sustained. Any recovery or adjustment already made out of later years' refunds was to be returned with statutory interest. The department remains free to recover the tax from the deductor.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.