Month: September 2019

Archive for September, 2019


CIT v. Orma Marble Palace (P) Ltd. (2019) 177 DTR 350 / 308 CTR 584/ 110 Taxman .com 435 (Ker.)(HC)Editorial: SLP of the assessee is dismissed Orma Marble Palace (P) Ltd v CIT ( 2019) 267 Taxman 436 (SC)

S. 158BB : Block assessment–Computation-Undisclosed income– Estimation of profits can be made on the basis of both, material recovered in the search as well as the material available with the AO-Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed.

CIT v. Cordial Company (2019) 308 CTR 159/176 DTR 185 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 153C : Assessment-Income of any other person-Search and seizure–Addition made based on document seized at the premises of third party–Held, presumption u/s. 292C would apply in case of person from whose premise the document was seized–Held, addition burden on the AO in such case–Held, no proper enquiry by the AO – Held addition deleted. [S. 69, 292C]

Pankajbhai Jaysukhlal Shah v. ACIT ( 2019 ) 110 taxmann.com 51 / (2020) 425 ITR 70/ 312 CTR 300/ 185 DTR 306(Guj)(HC), www.itatonline.orgEdiitorial : SLP of revenue is dismissed ,ACIT v. Pankajbhai Jaysukhlal Shah ( 2020 ) 275 Taxman 99 ( SC)

S. 148 : Reassessment-The officer recording the reasons and the officer issuing notice has to be the same person-Any inherent defect therein cannot be cured -The fact that the assessee participated in the proceedings is irrelevant. [S. 147, 148(2), 292B]

Fomento Resorts & Hotels Ltd. v. ACIT (Bom.)(HC)(Goa Bnech), www.itatonline.org

S. 147 : Reassessment–Failure to follow the procedure laid down in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd v. ITO (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) and to pass a separate order to deal with the objections- Renders the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer ultra vires. [S. 148]

Sanjivani Non-Ferrous Trading (P) Ltd .v. ITO (2019) 308 CTR 532 / 177 DTR 276 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years–Survey— Materials clearly showed that the sales declared were to be suspected—Re-opening was sustainable. [S. 133A, 148]

CIT v. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd (2019) 179 DTR 161 / 104 CCH 608 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 145 : Method of accounting–Cash method -Reimbursement not received from state government cannot be taxed on accrual basis. [S. 145]

CIT v. Kerala State Construction Corporation Ltd. (2019) 177 DTR 411/ 308 CTR 841/ 267 Taxman 256 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 139 : Return of income – Return under 139(3) is necessary in order to carry forward losses under the head ‘business or profession’ or ‘capital gains’- Claim for carry forward and set off of busness loss is not allowed . . [S.45, 139(1), 139(3), 139(5)]

Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. ACIT (2019) 308 CTR 777/308 CTR 777 / 178 DTR 113/ 265 Taxman 37 (Mad.)(HC) Dalmia Power Ltd. v. ACIT (2019)418 ITR 221 308 CTR 777 / 178 DTR 113 / 265 Taxman 37 (Mad.)(HC).Editorial: Decision of single judge is partly reversed by the Division Bench in appeal . ACIT v. Dalmia Power Ltd (2019) 418 ITR 242 (Mad) (HC) ACIT v Dalmia Cement Power Ltd ( 2019) 418 ITR 242 (Mad) (HC)

S. 139 : Return of income–revised return–amalgamation–post amalgamation revised return was required to be filed as the effective date was much prior to such date–Held, section 139(5) is not applicable to cases where revised returns are required to be filed pursuant to the approval of scheme of amalgamation by competent court–Held, Rule 12(3) requiring filing of return of income electronically not applicable to cases where the revised returns are require to be filed pursuant to the approval of scheme of amalgamation by competent court–Held, if electronic filing is not possible, Department to accept physical revised return. [S. 119, Companies Act, 2013 S. 391, and Rule 12(3) of the Rules]

Bhoopathy, R. v. CIT (2019) 418 ITR 591/ 308 CTR 63 / 176 DTR 239 / 263 Taxman 411 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 132(4) : Search and seizure-Statement on oath–Statement made by the assessee that capitation fees paid by to the Engineering college–Held, cannot ipso fact make addition based on such statement–Held, no admission that engineering fees paid out of undisclosed income.-Addition held to be not justified [S. 158BB, 158BC]

Safeflex International Ltd. v. ITO ( 2019) 183 DTR 129 /202 TTJ 258(Jaipur)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org

S. 115JB : Book profit-Special economic zones-Even income arising from the business of a SEZ Unit, which is exempt u/s 10AA, is subject to MAT from AY 2012-13 onwards owing to the insertion of the proviso to s. 115JB(6)-Order of rectification is held to be valid. [S. 10AA, 154]