Month: May 2018

Archive for May, 2018


DR. T. J. Jaikish v. CIT (2018) 403 ITR 256 (Ker) (HC)

S. 10(34) :Dividend – Domestic companies – Tax on distribution of profits – Applicable only for amounts which suffered tax u/s 115O does not apply to deemed dividends . [S. 2(22)(e), 115O]

Talluri Srinivas v. UOI (2018) 254 Taxman 261 (Delhi)(HC)

Chartered Accountants Act, 1949
S. 22A: Appellate Authority- Appellate Authority of four members can hear and decide appeal, in spite of recusal of one of members .

Nataraju (HUF) v. PCIT (2018) 406 ITR 342 /254 Taxman 357/ 167 DTR 100/ 304 CTR 665 (Karn.)(HC), Editorial : Order of single judge was set aside ,Nataraju (HUF) v. PCIT (2021) 323 CTR 480 / 207 DTR 249 ( Karn ) (HC)

S. 264 : Commissioner – Revision of other orders – Where assessee deliberately avoided availing of regular remedy by way of an appeal against assessment order and just before expiry of prescribed time period, preferred revision same was rightly dismissed by Principal Commissioner .

Google India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT(IT) (2018) 254 Taxman 228/163 DTR 497 / 302 CTR 276/( 2019) 412 ITR 372 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 255 : Appellate Tribunal – Powers of President -Power to constitute special Bench is with president , Court will not interfere .

Nitin Babubhai Rohit v. Dharmendra Vishnubhai Patel (2018) 409 ITR 276/ 254 Taxman 103 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 251 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Powers – Once penalty order was set aside by revisional authority, it was thereafter not open for Commissioner (Appeals) to still examine merits of such an order and declare his legal opinion on same. [ S.264,271(1)(c ) ]

Worldwide Wickets In, re (2018) 254 Taxman 222/ 166 DTR 326/ 303 CTR 107 (AAR)

S. 245R : Advance rulings – Capital gains- Application for advance ruling could not be rejected merely because it involved computation of capital gains as computation of capital gains is embedded in concept of valuation and question pertained to legal admissibility of transaction and not of any valuation -DTAA-India – Mauritius [ Art 13(4) ]

A. Kuberan v. CCIT (2018) 254 Taxman 189 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 234A : Interest – Default in furnishing return of income – Disclosure was made after the search action rejection of application for waiver of interest was held to be justified [ S.119, 132(4), 234B 234C ]

CIT v. Google India (P.) Ltd. (2018) 254 Taxman 410 /164 DTR 278/ 302 CTR 282 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery – Assessee deemed in default – Pursuant to two orders passed by writ Courts, assessee had deposited 30 per cent of demand and had furnished bank guarantee to extent of 45 per cent of demand. Since interest of revenue stood adequately safeguarded, revenue was not justified in increasing tax demand to 55 per cent of dues .

CIT v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. (2018) 254 Taxman 370 (Bom.)(HC) Editorial : SLP of revenue is dismissed due to low tax effect CIT v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. ( 2020) 269 Taxman 569 (SC)

S. 201 : Deduction at source – Failure to deduct or pay –Short deduction of tax at source -Finding that there was no default hence not liable to interest .[ S.201(IA) ]

UOI v. Hari Singh (2018) 254 Taxman 126 / 166 DTR 176/ 302 CTR 48 ( SC)/ITO v. Movaliya Bhikubhai Balabhai (2018) 254 Taxman 126 / 166 DTR 176/ 302 CTR 458 (SC)

S. 194LA : Deduction at source – Compensation on acquisition of certain immoveable property – Where Land Acquisition Collector while disbursing compensation, had deducted tax at source and deposited same with Income Tax Department, better course of action, which was in consonance with provisions of Act, for assessee should have been to approach concerned Assessing Officer and raise issue that no tax was payable on compensation/enhanced compensation received by them as their land was agricultural land – Collector was directed to follow the procedure prescribed by Kerala High Court . [ S.197 ]