Year: 2018

Archive for 2018


PCIT v. Rasoi Ltd. (2018) 407 ITR 126 (Cal) (HC)

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income –Investment in shares – Not from borrowed funds –No disallowance can be made. [S. 10(34), R.8D ]

CIT( E ) v. Sadguru Narendra Maharaj Sansthan. (2018)407 ITR 12 (Bom) (HC)

S. 12A : Registration –Trust or institution- when there is no change in objects of Trust , registration cannot be cancelled on the ground that there was amendment in respect of appointment of chief trustees and manner of managing the trust .[ S.11, 12AA(3), 13 ]

PCIT v. Maharashtra Cricket Association. (2018) 407 ITR 9 (Bom) (HC)

S. 12A : Registration –Trust or institution- Cricket association holding commercial tournaments on behalf of Board of Control for cricket in India is entitle exemption . The court admitted the appeal on the question whether the Tribunal erred in holding that even after addition to the objects clauses of the assessee-trust made without intimation to the Department, the registration could not be ipso facto cancelled under section 12AA(3) on the ground that the registration granted under section 12A and the benefits flowing therefrom, could not continue after amending the objects without the approval of the competent authority. [ S.2(15) 12AA(3), 260A ]

JCIT v Grihalaksh films ( 2018) 405 ITR 75 / 96 taxmann.com 175 / 169 DTR 70( Ker) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed , JCIT v. Grihalaksh films. (2018) 257 Taxman 188 (SC)

Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016- Finance Act , 2016
S.208: Scheme not to apply in certain cases -Acceptance of loans or deposits-Penalty under S. 271D and 271E for contravention of S. 269SS will be entitled to have their applications processed for benefit of Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016. [ ITA, S. 269SS,271D, 271E ]

Sujatha Venkateshwaran ( Mrs) v. ACIT (2018) 408 ITR 545/ 257 Taxman 195/( 2019) 173 DTR 327/ 306 CTR 343 (Mad)( HC)

S. 277 : Offences and prosecutions – False statement – Verification – Principal Assessing Officer-Bogus claim of brokerage- Subscribed her signature in profit and loss account and balance sheet of company for relevant assessment year which were filed along with returns-Assessing Officer was justified in naming her as Principal Officer and accordingly she could not be exonerated for offence under S. 277 of the Act. [ S. 2(35), 204(iii), 276C, 278B , CRPC, S.245 ]

CIT v. P.N. Bhaskaran (Dr. ) v . (2018)407 ITR 169/ 257 Taxman 161 (Ker)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Capital gains- Firm- Investment in specified assets- Revision up held -On merit , deduction is allowed where assessee invested sale proceeds of hospital business in UTI within prescribed time period- Share of daughter received by way of release , the matter was remanded to verify whether period exceeded 36 months and decide according to law . [ 45(4) 54EA ]

PCIT v. KPC Medical College & Hospital. (2018) 257 Taxman 159 (Cal)( HC) Editorial: Order in KPC Medical College & Hospital v. Dy. CIT (2015) 172 TTJ 204 ( Kol) (Trib) is affirmed .

S. 251 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Power of enhancement -In penalty appeal the CIT(A) cannot issue direction to the Assessing Officer for exploring the addition in assessment . [ S.271(1) (c )]

Bangalore International Airport Ltd. v. ITO (IT) (2018) 257 Taxman 148/ 2019) 417 ITR 140 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 246A : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Appealable orders -Deduction at source- Denying the liability is appeasable -Order determining amount of tax deduction at source is appealable order- Tribunal has failed to consider S.248 of the Act therefore suffers from infirmity and is per incuriam – Matter set aside to decide in accordance with law.[ S.195(2) , 248, 254(1) ]

M .A. Zahid. v. ACIT (2018) 257 Taxman 137/ 303 CTR 835/ 168 DTR 313 /( 2019) 412 ITR 135 (Karn)( HC)

S. 222 : Collection and recovery – Certificate to Tax Recovery Officer – Arrest- Notice under rule 73 of Schedule II having been issued for recovery of tax dues did not give rise to any apprehension of immediate arrest-Petition under S. 438 of Cr.P.C. against said show-cause notice would not be maintainable. [ S. 276C, Cr .P.C. S.438 ]

Sky View Consultants ( P) Ltd v. ITO ( 2017) 397 ITR 673/ 86 taxmann.com 87 ( 2018) 169 DTR 157/ 304 CTR 827 ( Delhi) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed , ITO v. Sky view consultants. (2018) 257 Taxman 250 (SC)

S.147: Reassessment- Tax evasion petition- Recording of reasons- Bogus entries- Tax evasion petitions received for previous years cannot be basis for reopening of assessment for relevant year, as Assessing Officer had not referred in recording reasons for the year under consideration- Reports submitted by the Income tax Officer who is not authorised to exercise the power cannot be the basis for reopening of assessment [ S.69A, 131(IA), 148 ]