Month: August 2019

Archive for August, 2019


CIT(IT) v. Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd. (2019) 105 taxmann.com 311 / 263 Taxman 476 (Delhi) (HC) Editorial: SLP is granted to the revenue, CIT(IT) v. Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd. (2019) 263 Taxman 475 (SC)

S. 234B : Interest-Advance tax–Non-resident-,Entire tax was to be deducted at source -Not liable to pay interest for failure to pay advance tax.

ARCIL Retail Loan Portfolio001-D-Trust v. PCIT (2019) 263 Taxman 508 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 226 : Collection and recovery-Stay–Pendency of appeal before CIT (A)- Similar addition was decided in favour of other assessee by the CIT(A) -AO cannot direct the Assessee to deposit 20 percent of tax demanded. [S. 246A]

Uthangarai Sri Vidya Mandir Educational and Social Welfare Trust v. ACIT (2019) 263 Taxman 422 //(2020)421 ITR 405 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery–Stay-Pendency of appeal before CIT( A) – AO cannot proceed mechanically in calling upon assessee to remit 20 per cent of demand without examining appropriateness of facts and circumstances of case- Order was set aside. [S. 132, 153A, 220(6)]

Veisa Technologies. v. ACIT (2019) 263 Taxman 600// (2020)422 ITR 536 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery–Stay–Appeal pending before CIT(A)-Assessee has given liberty to approach the AO to stay the demand. [S. 220(3), 220(6), 246A]

CIT v. Times Global Broadcasting Co. Ltd. (2019)105 taxman .com 313 / 263 Taxman 466 (Bom.)(HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed, CIT v. Times Global Broadcasting Co. Ltd. (2019) 263 Taxman 465 (SC)

S. 194C : Deduction at source–Contractors-Placement fees/carriage fees – work contract and not fees for technical service. [S. 194J]

Gurmeet Singh Vilkhu v. PCIT (2019) 263 Taxman 636/ 307 CTR 799/ 176 DTR 105 (MP)(HC)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Relief for income-tax-Arrears or advance of salary–Failure to claim in return–Rectification order passed by the AO is held to be without jurisdiction. [S.89(1)]

My Car (Pune) (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2019) 263 Taxman 626/ 179 DTR 236 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-Sanction order indicated non-application of mind to reasons recorded for reopening, therefore, reopening notice was bad in law and quashed. [S.147, 148]

Kanchan Agarwal (Mrs.) v. ITO (2019) 263 Taxman 682 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment–With in four years- On the day of furnishing the recorded reasons–Reassessment order is passed -Order passed in hasty manner–Order is seta side. [S. 148]

Max Ventures Investments Holdings (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2019) 415 ITR 395 / 263 Taxman 401/ ( 2019) 179 CTR 228/ 309 CTR 372 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Cash credits-Share application money-Huge premium-Genuineness of transaction or creditworthiness of individual providing money were apparently not established–Issue of reassessment notice is held to be justified.[S. 68, 148]

Pandesara Infrastructure Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2019) 105 taxmann.com 181 / 263 Taxman 367 (Guj.)(HC) Editorial : SLP of revenue is dismissed, Dy. CIT v. Pandesara Infrastructure Ltd. (2019) 263 Taxman 366 (SC)

S. 147 : Reassessment–After the expiry of four years-Book profit-Subsidy received by assessee from Government was directly credited to capital reserve account-Sufficient disclosure of facts– Reassessment is held to be bad in law.[S. 115JB, 148]