Month: January 2019

Archive for January, 2019


CIT v. Eco Auto Components Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 409 ITR 202 (P&H)(HC)

S. 35DDA : Amortisation of expenditure – Voluntary retirement scheme -Deduction relating to Financial Year 2000-01, Being Fifth Year deduction is available.

CIT v. Goldman Sachs Services P. Ltd. (2018) 409 ITR 268 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income – No disallowance can be made when the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the year. [R. 8D]

K. S. Chaudhary and others v. Life Insurance Corporation Of India (2018) 409 ITR 258 (Delhi)(HC) Rajesh Kumar Gupta v. Senior Divisional Manager , Life Insurance Corporation of India (2018) 409 ITR 258 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 10(14) : Special allowance or benefit-Employees of Life Insurance Corporation-Fixed conveyance allowance, additional conveyance allowance and expenses under head reimbursement of expenses scheme is entitled to exemption-Tax deducted at source to be reimbursed to the employees and benefit under S.89 to be extended on reimbursement of deduced amount. [S.10(14)(ii), 89, 192, R. 2BB]

A. Sridevi ( Smt) v. ITO (2018) 408 ITR 83/ 171 DTR 417/ 305 CTR 670 /( 2019) 260 Taxman 76 (Mad) (HC) Editorial: Affirmed by division Bench, A. Sridevi ( Smt) v. ITO (2018) 409 ITR 502 //( 2019) 260 Taxman 181 ( Mad) (HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment -Second reassessment -New tangible material was found- Reassessment is valid [ S. 148, 149(1)(b ) ]

Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd v. Dy.CIT ( 2018) 172 DTR 291/ ( 2019) 307 CTR 582 ( Bom) (HC)

S. 264 :Commissioner – Revision of other orders -Condonation of delay – Commission paid was claimed as deduction in the AY. 2013-14- Assessing Officer held that the Commissioner pertaining to AY. 2012-13 hence not allowed – Revision application was filed for the AY. 2012-13 , with in one month of the order for the AY.2013-14-PCIT rejected the petition on the ground that it was time barred – On writ the delay was condoned and the PCIT is directed to dispose the application on merits .[ S.143(3)]

Kanta Sharma v. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (2018) 259 Taxman 376 (Delhi)( HC)

Chartered Accountants Act, 1949,
S.10: Failure to append her signatures at places earmarked therefor in nomination form, petitioner’s nomination was rightly rejected by ICAI for non-compliance of statutory rules 9, 10 and 11 of Chartered Accountants (Election to Council) Rules, 2006 and petitioner could not contest election- Petition is dismissed .[ Rules, 9, 10, 11]

Ramprakash Biswanath Shroff v. CIT (TDS) (2018) 259 Taxman 385( Bom) (HC) www.itatonline.org Editorial: Petioner has received the TDS certificate accordingly the petition was herad and decided .( WPNo. 2537 of 2018 dt 11-1-2019) Ramprakash Biswanath Shroff v. CIT (TDS) ( Bom) (HC)

S. 200 : Deduction at source – Duty of person deducting tax -Employer -Failure to issue Form no 16 after deducting tax at source from salary- Commissioner (TDS) is directed to file a comprehensive affidavit and Department of Revenue was also to be directed to penalise such defaulters and take other strict measures as contemplated by law against them by launching prosecution as per S.405 of the Indian Penal code ( Criminal breach of trust). [ S.192 ,Indian Penal Code S. 405 ]

South Asia FM Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 259 Taxman 266 /(2019) 413 ITR 205(Mad) (HC)

S.147:Reassessment- Cash credits -Share capital- On the basis of information from CBI that the receipts were camouflaged as capital receipts- Considering fact that there were materials and informations on record with revenue-Reopening of assessment was done to verify the genuineness of the investment – R reassessment is in accordance with law- Reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer need not be communicated along with the notice itself – Notice issued for purpose of reopening of assessment would not provide a cause of action for filing writ petitions . [ S.68, 143(1),148 ]

PCIT v. Broadway Shoe Co. (2018) 259 Taxman 223 (J & K)(HC)

S.143(3): Assessment- Reassessment – Notice- When return was not filed in compliance of notice issued under S. 148, issue of notice under S 143(2) is not required for making assessment. [ S. 139 ,142(1), 143(3), 148]

Srinidhi Karti Chidambaram & Ors v PCIT ( 2018) 172 DTR 113 /305 CTR 689 /( 2019) 411 ITR 1 ( Mad) (HC)Editorial: Decision of single judge Srinidhi Karti Chidambaram. v. CIT (2018) 404 ITR 578 / 255 Taxman 495/166 DTR 17/302 CTR 353 (Mad) (HC)Editorial: Decision of single judge Srinidhi Karti Chidambaram. v. CIT (2018) 404 ITR 578 / 255 Taxman 495/166 DTR 17/302 CTR 353 (Mad) (HC)

Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015,

S. 55: Sanction- Return of income has many schedules are part of income referred to S.139 of the Act- Offence under S.50 of the Black money Act is made out only if, in the return of income under sub S. (1) or sub s.(4) or sub s.(5) of the income -tax Act , there has been a wilful failure to disclosure any information relating to foreign asset – On facts the asset was disclosed in Schedule FA and in the case of Karti Chidambaram , in the original return of income filed and other three cases in the revised return of income filed with in due date ; sanctioning authority has come to an erroneous conclusion that the case deserve prosecution for non-doscloure of the details of the asset in the return of income filed under S.139(1) . Sanction order was set aside , offences under S.50 is not made out consequently , complaints filed are quashed . However , contention of the assesses that the Principal Director of Income -tax is not an authority , jurisdiction /competence under S.55 of the Black Money Act , to sanction prosecution or file a prosecution complaint for offences under S.50 of the Black Money Act is not accepted .[ S. 2(11), 2(12), 4, 49, 50 59, 84 , ITACT, S.139, Art .14 ]