Month: August 2019

Archive for August, 2019


State Bank of India v. CIT (2019) 414 ITR 519 (P&H) (HC)

S. 226 : Collection and recovery-Modes of recovery-Insolvency proceedings initiated-Priority of debts-Creditor and department-Declaration of moratorium by National Company Law Tribunal against assesse-Petition is held to be infructuous [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, S. 14(1), Art. 226, 227]

CIT v. Google India P. Ltd. (2019) 414 ITR 608 / 177 DTR 385/310 CTR 497/( 2020) 269 Taxman 183 (Karn.) (HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Stay-Stay was granted subject to payment specified in the order.[S. 226]

CIT v. Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (2019) 414 ITR 551/ 264 Taxman 296 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 194D : Deduction at source-Insurance commission–Tax was rightly deducted on net commission excluding service tax.

CIT v. Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (2019) 414 ITR 551 / 264 Taxman 296(Bom.)(HC)

S. 194C : Deduction at source–Contractors-Services clerical in nature-Not technical or managerial services-Provisions of S.194C is applicable and not S.194J [S. 194J]

Rajan Jewellery v. CIT (2019) 414 ITR 621/177 DTR 369/308 CTR 602/ 266 Taxman 357 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 153B : Assessment-Search and seizure–Limitation-Order of assessment was despatched on last day prescribed–Not barred by limitation.[S. 132]

Rajan Jewellery. v. CIT (2019) 414 ITR 621/177 DTR 369/308 CTR 602/ 266 Taxman 357 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 153A : Assessment–Search-Undisclosed income-Books of account found unreliable-Estimate of income on the basis of estimate is held to be valid. [S. 132(4)]

Rajender Kumar Sehgal v. ITO (2019) 414 ITR 286 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment–Notice issued in name of deceased assessee—Department attempting to correct error by changing name of entity in reasons to believe”—Not curable defects notice is invalid –Failure to issue notice u/s. 143(2) with in prescribed time – Reassessment is in valid. [S. 143(2), 147, 159, 29BB]

Valsad District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. ACIT (2019) 414 ITR 616 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Approved garrulity fund –Failure to produce original order of approval does not amount to failure to disclose material facts–Reassessment notice is held to be not valid. [S. 36(1)(v), 148]

Best Cybercity (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2019) 414 ITR 385/ 178 DTR 409/ 265 Taxman 100 /(2020) 313 CTR 711 (Delhi)(HC).Editorial : SLP of revenue is dismissed , ITO v . Best Cybercity (India) Pvt. Ltd ( 2021 ) 277 Taxman 394 ( SC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-No new tangible material- Disclosing and explaining all material facts during assessment proceedings-Deficiency in reasons recorded cannot be rectified in affidavit-Reassessment is bad in law.[S. 143(3), 148 ]

Prashant M. Timblo v. CCIT (2019) 414 ITR 507 (Bom) (HC) Editorial : SLP of revenue is dismissed CCIT v. Prashant M. Timblo (2018) 408 ITR 72 (St) (SC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Benefit of Double taxation benefit–Tax residency certificate-Introduced subsequently-Reassessment is bad in law-DTAA-India–UAE [S.148, Art. 4(b)]