Month: December 2019

Archive for December, 2019


Vodafone India Services P. Ltd. v. UOI (2019) 418 ITR 376 / 310 CTR 298 / 179 DTR 129 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default–Stay –Penalty–Pendency of review petition-Discretion must be exercised judiciously–Rejection of application for stay of recovery of penalty is held to be without application of mind–No waiting for three days in terms of order passed-Held to be not valid. [S. 220(6), 245, 271(1)(c), Art. 226]

Hi Care Gloves (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 267 Taxman 42 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default– Pendency of appeal before CIT(A) and condonation of delay– Offered to pay 10% of tax demand–Court directed the CIT(A) to dispose the application for condonation od delay–Not to recover further tax amount until disposal of applications for condonation of delay. [S. 246A, Art. 226]

CIT v. Nimbus Communications Ltd. (2019) 266 Taxman 376 (Bom.)(HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed; CIT v. Nimbus Communications Ltd. (2019) 266 Taxman 375 (SC)/416 ITR 128 (St.)(SC)

S. 194H : Deduction at source–Commission or brokerage– Guarantee commission paid to bank is not covered under commission or brokerage–Not liable to deduct tax at source. [S. 201(1), 201(IA)]

TLG India Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (TDS) (2019) 418 ITR 324/ 267 Taxman 319/ 184 DTR 329 ( 2020) 312 CTR 179 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 194C : Deduction at source–Contractors advertisement services-Principle of natural justice must be followed-Assessing Officer is not justified in deciding that tax should be deducted under Section 194J without giving an opportunity of hearing. [S. 194J, 197,201(1), 201(IA), Art. 226]

B. Muralidhar. v. DCIT (2019) 267 Taxman 35 /(2020) 424 ITR 397 / 187 DTR 162 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 179 : Private company-Liability of directors–Alternative remedy is available by way of revision-Writ petition is dismissed. [S.264, Art.226]

S. Ajit Kumar. v. ACIT (2019)419 ITR 260/ 266 Taxman 380/ 184 DTR 449 /(2020) 314 CTR 687(Mad.)(HC)

S. 158BFA : Block assessment–Penalty–Limitation-Pursuant to supreme Court’s order deciding quantum of appeal in favour of revenue–Dormant penalty proceedings were reinitiated–Order is not barred by limitation–Order of Tribunal was merged with the order of the Supreme Court. [S. 158BFA(3)(c), 253, 271(1)(c), 275]

Epson India P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2019) 418 ITR 267/ 311 CTR 925 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment–Jurisdiction-Deputy Commissioner had jurisdiction to issue notice–Petition dismissed. [S.147,Art. 226]

PCIT v. Tata Sons Ltd. (2019) 267 Taxman 13 (Bom.)(HC),Editorial:PCIT v. Tata Sons Ltd. (2022)449 ITR 166 (SC), affirmed .

S. 148 : Reassessment–Notice–Issue of notice prior to recording of reasons for reopening of assessment is held to be without jurisdiction–Deserves to be quashed–Defects could not be cured by invoking S.292B of the Act. [S. 147, 292B ]

Ravindra Kumar (HUF) @ Rabindra Kumar (HUF) v. CIT (2019) 419 ITR 308/ 266 Taxman 506/ 311 CTR 912 / 184 DTR 315(Patna) (HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment–Agricultural income-Advisory issued by the department–Verify the income-Undisclosed income-No tangible material-Reassessment is held to be bad in law. [S. 2(IA), 148, Art. 226]

Kisan Agro Mart (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2019) 103 taxmann.com 374 / 266 Taxman 374 (Bom.)(HC) Editorial: SLP of assessee is dismissed, Kisan Agro Mart (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2019) 266 Taxman 373 (SC)/ 417 ITR 63 (St.)(SC)

S. 147 : Reassessment–Alternative remedy–Writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the assessee had availed alternative remedy. [S. 148, 251, Art. 226]