Month: October 2019

Archive for October, 2019


HSBC Holdings Plc. v. DCIT (2019) 417 ITR 74/ 266 Taxman 82/ 183 DTR 269 / 311 CTR 565 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment–Territorial Jurisdiction of High Court- Assessment at Hyderabad-Notice of reassessment at Mumbai-Bombay High Court has discretion to refuse to consider writ petition. [S. 147, Art. 226]

Pranav Ravindrabhai Shah. v. ITO (2019) 417 ITR 200 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment–Notice issued in name of dead person- Objection raised–Notice is not valid–Subsequent proceedings are also to be quashed. [S. 159, 292B]

A. Thangavel Nadir Stores v. ITO (2019) 417 ITR 50 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Survey–Retraction-Notice based solely on statement recorded during survey-Held to be not valid. [S. 132(4), 133A(iii), 148]

Nestle SA v. ACIT (2019) 417 ITR 213/ 311 CTR 344/181 DTR 211 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment -Filing of return not an admission that notice is valid-Exempt from filing of return-Investment in subsidiary did not give rise to taxable income-Re assessment notice is held to be not valid. [S. 115A(5), 148, Art.226]

Aswani Enterprises v. ACIT ( 2018) 100 taxmann.com 178/ (2019) 417 ITR 223 (Mad.)(HC) Editorial: SLP dismissed, Aswani Enterprises v .ACIT (2023)456 ITR 33 /294 Taxman 435 (SC)

S. 147 : Reassessment -Deemed dividend- Advances received from company-Two partners are shareholders with substantial interest-Reassessment is held to be valid. [S. 2(22)(e), 148 ]

Sesa Sterlite Ltd. v. ACIT (2019) 417 ITR 334 / 267 Taxman 275 /181 DTR 290 (Bom.)(HC). Editorial : Notice issued in SLP ACIT v. V.M. Salgaocar Sales International (2021) 283 Taxman 192 (SC)/ ( 2022) 284 Taxman 373 / 289 Taxman 74(SC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Shah Commission’s report- Cash credit -Under-invoicing -Merely on basis of Shah Commission’s Report opining that there was under-invoicing of export price by iron-ore miners and exporters, reassessment could not be initiated when there was nothing to indicate that any particular income had accrued to anyone as a result of price difference-Notice based on report of commission is held to be not valid. [S. 28(1) , 68 ,148]

C. K. Abdul Azeez. v. CIT (2019) 417 ITR 363 / 182 DTR 283/ 267 Taxman 553/ 311 CTR 489(Ker.)(HC)

S. 133A : Power of survey–Unexplained investment-Statement in the course of survey–Documents discovered in the course of survey-Failure to explain the source satisfactorily–Addition is held to be valid. [S. 69, 132, 133A(3)(iii)]

Indian Traders v. State of Bihar (2019) 417 ITR 95 (Pat.)(HC)

S. 132A : Powers-Requisition of seized assets-Cash seized under guidelines issued by Election Commission-Election commission finding that seizure was not valid-Income-Tax Authorities had no jurisdiction to requisition such cash. [S.132, Art.226]

CIT v. Symphony Marketing Solutions India P. Ltd. (2019) 417 ITR 289 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing–Arm’s length price–Comparables-Companies large and functionally distinct with different areas of development and services-Cannot be benchmarked or equated-Exclusion of three comparables-Held to be valid. [S. 92CA]

Madura Coats P. Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 417 ITR 115 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 80HH : Newly established industrial undertakings-Dipping plant-Manufacture- Manufacturing cloth industrial fabrics, readymade garments sewing threads etc-Entitle to deduction. [S. 2(29B)]