Month: May 2018

Archive for May, 2018


DR. S. F. V. Selvaraj v. ACWT 2018] 403 ITR 213/ 168 DTR 168/ 305 CTR 894 (Mad) (HC)

Wealth-Tax Act, 1957
S.14: Return- Failure to file return on due date – Return was filed pursuant to reassessment notice – liable to pay interest from due date till date of filing of return [ S.17 , 17B ]

Syed Abubacker Riyaz v. CIT (2018) 403 ITR 252 (Karn) (HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – No proper enquiry was made in respect of unexplained investment , revision was held to be justified [ S. 69,133(6),143(3) ]

Mehul Jadavji Shah v. DCIT ( 2018) 403 ITR 201 / 165 DTR 366/255 Taxman 126 / 302 CTR 344 (Bom) (HC)

S. 179 : Private company – Liability of directors – Before the Assessing Officer assumed jurisdiction, efforts to recover the tax dues from the company should have failed and such efforts and failure of recovery ought to have been mentioned in the notice, howsoever briefly. No distinction can be made between professional or paid directors and directors holding a large shareholding stake in the company.

Dempo Brothers Pvt Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 403 ITR 196 (Bom) (HC) Editorial: SLP of Revenue is dismissed (SLP No.32769 of 2018) (2019) 410 ITR 162(St.)(SC)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years- Transfer of shares – There was no failure to disclose material facts -Reassessment is bad in law [ S.148, R.40B ]

PCIT v. Gujarat Electricity Board. (2018) 403 ITR 245 (Guj) (HC)

S. 143(1) : Assessment – Intimation -Additional tax -Reduction of loss on account of depreciation- Additional tax is held to be not leviable .[ S.143(IA) ]

Eluru Co-Operative House Mortgage Society Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 403 ITR 172 (T&AP) (HC)

S. 80P : Co-operative societies – Mere inclusion of name originally and object in bye-laws of society is not conclusive, deduction is eligible .

PCIT v. Millennium Park Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 403 ITR 178 (Guj) (HC)

S. 69B : Amounts of investments not fully disclosed in books of account – Purchase of land – Difference between the amount disclosed and estimate by Assessing Officer cannot be treated as undisclosed . [ S.153A ]

Krishan Kumar Sethi v. CIT (2018) 403 ITR 189 / 255 Taxman 193 (Delhi) (HC)

S.68: Cash credits — Deposit in Bank- — Failure to explain the source satisfactorily addition was held to be justified .

CIT v. Mohan Export India Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 403 ITR 207/162 DTR 247 /253 Taxman 386 (Delhi) (HC)

S.37(1): Business Expenditure – Commission – Expenditure incurred was reasonably linked with its business which was confirmed by the parties hence allowable as business expenditure

PCIT v. Larsen And Toubro Ltd. (2018) 403 ITR 248 / 98 Taxmann.com 186(Bom) (HC).Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed , PCIT v. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. (2018) 259 Taxman 79 (SC)

S.32: Depreciation —Machinery utilised for trial runs is entitle to depreciation .