Month: November 2018

Archive for November, 2018


LIC Employees Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 408 ITR 287/ 254 Taxman 119 (Mad) (HC)

Interpretation – Binding precedent -Appellate Tribunal- Assessing Officer is bound by decision of Tribunal- Pendency of an appeal would not amount to an order of stay .[ S.254(1) ]

ACIT v. Vijay Television Private Ltd. (2018) 407 ITR 642/ 304 CTR 149/ 169 DTR 17 (Mad) (HC)

Words and Phrases- Meanings of -“irregularity” and “illegality”.

CIT v. M. P. Purushothaman (2018) 407 ITR 689/ ( 2019) 175 DTR 221/ (2020) 314 CTR 733 (Mad) ( HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Cash credits- Reasonable cause in omitting rental income- Deletion of penalty is held to be justified .[ S.260A ]

Micro Inks Limited v. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 681 (Guj) (HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Allowability of interest -Assessing officer taking plausible view after proper enquiry — Order is not erroneous and cannot be revised. [ S.57(iii)]

V. C. Nannapaneni. v. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 505 / 305 CTR 625/ 171 DTR 337(T&AP) (HC)

S. 260A : Appeal – High Court -Question of Law — Interpretation of document is question of law —Amount received by assessee under non-compete agreement constitute capital receipt . [ S.4 ]

Jaya Chheda, Legal Heir of Late Hitesh S. Bhagat. v. ACIT (2018) 407 ITR 553 (Bom) (HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal – Duties-Business income or capital gains- Investment in shares- The entire data of each transaction was before the Tribunal and nothing prevented it from looking into all the transactions and recording findings of fact-The Tribunal had failed to perform its duty and therefore, its order was unsustainable. The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for decision afresh. [ S. 28( i), 45 ]

Maheshbhai Shantilal Patel. v. ITSC (2018) 405 ITR 270 (Guj) (HC)

S. 245D : Settlement Commission -Finding of failure by assessee to make true disclosure of undisclosed income — The limited jurisdiction of judicial review while examining the correctness of the order of the Settlement Commission is a well settled principle- Rejection of application is held to be justified. [ S.245C ]

CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. (2018) 405 ITR 249/ 171 DTR 254 (Ker) (HC)

S. 244 :Refunds – Interest on refunds – Time of accrual — Assessment on 22-3-1991 — Interest on refund granted on 9-10-2002 — Interest is not assessable in Assessment Year.

Ashokbhai Jagubhai Kheni v. DCIT (2018) 405 ITR 179 / 258 Taxman 275 (Guj) (HC)

S. 226 : Collection and recovery – Stay- Pendency of appeal- Circular by Central Board Of Direct Taxes that 15 Per Cent. of disputed demand to be deposited for stay — Permits decrease or even increase in percentage of disputed tax demand to be deposited — Requirement reduced to 7.5 Per Cent. On Further condition of security for remaining tax in dispute .

Sun Outsourcing Solutions P. Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 480/ 171 DTR 358/ 305 CTR 537 (T&AP) (HC)

S. 201 : Deduction at source – Failure to deduct or pay- Interest is automatic — Genuine belief that tax was not deductible at source is not relevant – Extra payment to meet costs constitute perquisites- Extra payment to meet costs in Foreign location is not entitled to exemption- Failure to deduct tax and deposit to Govt interest can be Levied- Unlike S.221 , S. 201(1A) is not hedged in by any requirement such as good faith or wilful default. Therefore, for levying interest, mens rea or wilful conduct is wholly irrelevant.[ S. 15, 10(14) , 17 , 192 , 221 ]