Year: 2018

Archive for 2018


CIT v. Sadguru Narendra Maharaj Sansthan (2018) 165 DTR 101 / 302 CTR 304 (Bom) (HC)

S. 12AA : Procedure for registration –Trust or institution- Cancellation of registration on basis of violation of S.13(1)(c ) of the Act is held to be not valid [ S.11, 13(1)( c) ]

Navodya Education Trust v UOI ( 2018)405 ITR 30 / 253 Taxman 412/ 302 CTR 381 / 165 DTR 16 ( Karn) (HC) Editorial: Decision of single judge is reversed Navodya Education Trust v. UOI ( 2019) 417 ITR 157 ( Karn) (HC)

S. 10 (23C): Educational institution-Withdrawal of approval- Collection of capitalisation fee- Illegal activities -Rs 52 crores was collected as anonymous donations – Sham or bogus trusts cannot be held to be entitle to exemption . [ S.10(23C) (vi) ]

Indira Industries v. PCIT ( 2018) 169 DTR 171 / 305 CTR 314 (Mad)(HC), www.itatonline.org

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –Limitation – If the authority issuing the show-cause notice lacks jurisdiction and if the notice is clearly barred by law , writ is maintainable- Notice issued by the PCIT is quashed [ Art, 226 ]

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. CST( 2018) (12) G.S.T.L.140 ( Bom)(HC), www.itatonline.org

S. 254(1):Appellate Tribunal –Stay- While deciding an application for stay of demand, the Appellate Tribunal can only consider the prima facie case of merits. It cannot give a final finding on the merits and decide the appeal itself.[ Central Excise Act , S. 35B ]

Pesak Ventures Ltd. v. DCIT ( 2018) 67 ITR 495(Delhi)(Trib),www.itatonline.org

S. 159 : Legal representatives –Notice or order on dead person or wound up company is a nullity subject to condition that the department is made aware of the death or winding up. If the assessee participated in the proceedings and thereafter has taken the plea that order or notice was served on dead person , wound-up company are nullity. In such cases, the assessment is liable to be set-aside for a fresh assessment in accordance with law instead of its annulment.[ S.163, 176 ]

Shah Realtors v. ACIT (Mum)(Trib), www.itatonline.org

S. 143(3) : Assessment –On Money- The fact that the assessee has sold flats at an undervaluation does not mean that he has understated the consideration and earned undisclosed ‘on money’. The mere presumption that excess price could have been charged is not a ground for coming to the conclusion that the assessee did charge a higher price. The burden of proving such understatement or concealment is on the Revenue- Addition was deleted .

ITO v. Wiz-Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd.( Kol)(Trib), www.itatonline.org

S. 68 : Cash credits –Bogus share premium-Addition cannot be made on the ground that the directors of the share subscribers did not turn up before the AO. The assessee can be required to prove only such facts which are in his knowledge. Creditworthiness of the subscriber cannot be disputed by the AO of the assessee but by the AO of the subscriber. If the assessee has discharged its onus to prove identity, creditworthiness & genuineness of the share applicants, the onus shifts to AO to disprove the documents furnished by assessee. In absence of any investigation, much less gathering of evidence by the AO, an addition cannot be sustained merely based on inferences drawn by circumstance .

PCIT v. Texraj Realty P. Ltd ( 2018) 95 Taxmann.com 102 (Guj)(HC), www.itatonline.org

S. 68:Cash credits- Survey-Addition of undisclosed income cannot be made on the basis of (a) entries in dairy found during survey & (b) admission of director in s. 133A survey if assessee has filed a retraction and alleged that the entries/ statement were recorded under pressure. Statement u/s 133A is merely information simplicitor and not evidence per se. Addition cannot be sustained if the Dept has not investigated the matter and find material to support the addition. [S.133A ]

CIT v. Lakshminarayana Mining Company. (2018) 404 ITR 522/ 166 DTR 429/ 303 CTR 417 (Karn) (HC)

Interpretation of taxing statutes -Income-tax — Provisions of Customs Act And Excise Act are different and not relevant in construing provisions of income-tax Act.

Krishnaswami Vijayakumar v. DIT (2018) 404 ITR 442 (Mad) (HC)

S. 279 : Offences and prosecutions – Sanction -Show cause notice-Writ against show cause notice is premature and not maintainable -It is not necessary for the authority to issue a show cause notice before granting an order of sanction .[ S. 276(c )(1), 277 , Art .226 ]