Month: June 2019

Archive for June, 2019


CIT v. Rashtradoot (HUF) (2019) 412 ITR 17 / 262 Taxman 360 (SC) Editorial: Arising from the order of High Court in CIT v. Rashtradoot (HUF) (2019) 104 taxmann.com 3 ( Raj) (HC)

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Where High Court does not dismiss appeal in limine but has dismissed it after hearing both parties, in such a situation, High Court should frame questions and answer them by assigning reasons accordingly one way or other–Matter remanded – Duty to record reasons. [S. 260A(4), 260A(5)]

PCIT v. Comverse Network Systems India (P.) Ltd. (2019) 103 taxmann.com 313 / 262 Taxman 100 (P&H)(HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed, PCIT v. Comverse Network Systems India (P.) Ltd. (2019) 262 Taxman 99 (SC)

S. 254(2A) : Appellate Tribunal–Stay-Appeal could not be decided by Tribunal due to pressure of pendency of cases and delay in disposal of appeal was not attributable to assessee in any manner-Interim protection of stay could continue beyond 365 days. [S. 254(1)]

Shirpur Gold Refinery Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2019) 262 Taxman 390 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal–Duties–Non speaking orders- The CIT(A) allowed the claim of expenditure and depreciation after verification of merits- Tribunal was not right in in law reversing the said conclusion without examination-Masterminded–Liberty is granted to the assessee to bring the issue of reassessment after disposal of appeal by the Appellate Tribunal. [S. 260A]

Nirma Specific Family Trust. v. ACIT (2018) 100 taxmann.com 262 (Guj.)(HC) Editorial: SLP of assessee is for interest on interest is dismissed, Nirma Specific Family Trust. v. ACIT (2019) 262 Taxman 304 (SC)

S. 244A : Refunds–Interest on refunds-Refund of excess tax collected was withheld and refunded by department after a huge delay merely on ground of pendency of appeal filed by revenue– Entitle to interest however not entitle to interest on interest.[S. 243, 244]

Shriram Finance. v. PCIT (2019) 262 Taxman 220 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default–Stay-Non speaking order-Directing to pay 20 percent of demand during pendency of appeal is set aside.

CIT v. Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd. (2019) 103 taxmann.com 376/ 262 Taxman 206 (Delhi)(HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is received ,CIT v. Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd. (2019) 262 Taxman 205 (SC)

S. 215 : Interest payable by assessee–Non–deposit of advance tax of advance tax in respect of consideration received by non resident-Not liable to pay interest.

CIT v. Asian Heart Institute and Research Centre (P.) Ltd. (2019) 262 Taxman 395 /(2020) 423 ITR 75 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 194J : Deduction at source – Fees for professional or technical services –Doctors-Payment to full time consultant doctors would fall within purview of S.194J as fees for professional services, and not under S. 192 as salary. [S. 192]

CIT v. Saifee Hospital. (2019) 262 Taxman 343 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 194C : Deduction at source–Contractors-Payments for services rendered towards maintenance of its medical equipments-Liable to be deduct tax at source u/s 194C and not under S. 194J of the Act.[S. 194J]

CIT v. Asian Heart Institute and Research Centre (P.) Ltd. (2019) 262 Taxman 395 /(2020) 423 ITR 75 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 194C : Deduction at source – Contractors – Annual Maintenance Contract in respect of various specialised hospital equipments – Not be in nature of fees for technical services- Deduction of tax at source as contractor- Held to be proper. [S.194J ]

Hinduja Foundation v. ITO (2019) 262 Taxman 111 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment –With in four years- An issue which was never examined by Assessing Officer during original scrutiny assessment, reopening of assessment was justified . [ S.11, 13 , 148]