Month: July 2018

Archive for July, 2018


Cascade Energy Pte Ltd. v. UOI (2018) 405 ITR 614 (Mad) (HC)

Words and phrases- Meaning of word “The”

Cascade Energy Pte Ltd. v. UOI (2018) 405 ITR 614 (Mad) (HC)

Prohibition of Benami Transactions Act, 1988.

S.24:Jurisdiction Of Officer — Notification No. S. O. 1620(E), dt. 18-5-2017 uploaded on Website of E-Gazette On 22-5-2017 — Department of publication Certifying date as 18-5-2017 — Notice and order of provisional attachment by Officer not authorised by Notification ,n 19-5-2017 is held to be not valid. [ S. 2(8) , 2(21), 18(1), 59 ]

CIT v. Sandeep Chandak (2018) 405 ITR 648//93 taxmann.com 405/ / 169 DTR 449/ 304 CTR 657 (All) (HC) CIT v. Shakutala Chandak (2018) 405 ITR 648 /93 taxmann.com 405 / 169 DTR 449/ 304 CTR 657 (All) (HC) CIT v. Kamal Kishore Chandak (2018) 405 ITR 648/93 taxmann.com 405 / 169 DTR 449/ 304 CTR 657 (All) (HC) Editorial: SLP of the assessee is dismissed , Sandeep Chandak v.CIT ( 2018) 405 ITR 11 ( St)// 255 Taxman 367 Editorial: Order in Sandeep Chandak v. ACIT (2017) 185 TTJ 265 /55 ITR 209 / 150 DTR 247 (Luck.)(Trib.) is reversed

S. 271AAB:Peanlty -Search initiated on or after Ist day of July 2012-No proceedings under S. 271(1)(c), initiated during course of assessment proceedings under S.143(3) of the Act. Admission by assessee in statement pursuant to search regarding undisclosed income and specifying manner in which such income derived — Initiation and imposition of penalty under S. 271AAB after completion of assessment proceedings is not vitiated by law .[ S.132, 271(1)(c ) ]

D. N. Singh v. CIT (2018) 405 ITR 507 (Pat) (HC)

S. 260A : Appeal – High Court – Power to review decision — Review is only In case of patent error — Decision after consideration of facts by Tribunal and High Court — Decision cannot be reviewed .

CIT v. U. S. Srivastava Memorial Educational Society. (2018) 405 ITR 546 (All) (HC)

S. 260A : Appeal – High Court – Order of Tribunal recalling order and passing an entirely different order — Appeal is maintainable from such order .[ S.254(1), 254(2) ,254(4) ]

CIT (LTU) v. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2018) 405 ITR 483 (Bom) (HC)

S. 260A : Appeal – High Court -Condonation of delay of 1371 days — Defective appeal filed by department dismissed for failure by department to rectify defects pointed out by Registrar —Reasons assigned for delay neither bona fide nor justified — Notice of motion dismissed.- Court also observed that , “Their attitude shows that they are not at all vigilant and interested in pursuing the cases filed by the Department involving a tax effect of crores of rupees. They expect the court to be lenient and liberal and pardon them every time. This approach of the Departmental officials is strongly deprecated.”

CIT v. Nectar Lifescience Ltd. (2018) 405 ITR 566 (P&H) (HC)

S. 260A : Appeal – High Court -Territorial jurisdiction of High Court — Assessment order and penalty order passed by Assessing Officer at New Delhi — First Appeal adjudicated by Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi and second appeal by Tribunal at New Delhi — Punjab and Haryana High Court has no Territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate appeal .[ S.80HHC,271(1)(c ) ]

CIT v. Airlift (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 405 ITR 487 (Bom) (HC)

S. 260A : Appeal – High Court -Limitation — Condonation of delay — Failure by Department to remove office objections despite extension -Reason of administrative difficulty — Delay cannot be condoned .

CIT v. U. S. Srivastava Memorial Educational Society. (2018) 405 ITR 546 (All) (HC)

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record –Tribunal has no power to recall order and pass an entirely different order . [ S.254(1) ]

Anne Venkata Vishnu Vara Prasad v. ACIT (2018) 405 ITR 491 /169 DTR 377/ 304 CTR 476 (T&AP) (HC) Yelamanchili Venkta Ramana v. ACIT (2018) 405 ITR 491/ 169 DTR 377/ 304 CTR 476 (T&AP) (HC)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years- Notice is not mentioning of failure to disclose material facts -Reassessment is not valid [ S.148,151 ]