Year: 2019

Archive for 2019


CIT v. Net work Systems & Technologies (P) Ltd. (2018) 172 DTR 445 (Ker.) (HC)

S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend-Registered and beneficial share holder – Assessee is not share holder-Addition cannot be made as deemed dividend.

Durgeshwari Hi-Rise & Farms (P.) Ltd v. CCIT (2018) 172 DTR 343/( 2019) 103 taxmannn.com 292 (Bom.)(HC).

S. 276B : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to pay to the credit tax deducted at source-Application for compounding of offence for delay in depositing tax deducted at source was dismissed only on ground that nobody attended proceedings when said application was taken up for hearing- order was to be set aside and, matter was remanded back for disposal on merits. [S. 278B, 279]

PCIT v. Bhavi Chand Jindal (2018) 170 DTR 401 / 305 CTR 180/( 2019) 414 ITR 654 (Delhi )(HC )

S. 271AAA : Penalty-Search initiated on or after 1st June, 2007–Penalty cannot be levied on the ground that the assessee had not substantiated the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived is not sustainable where the assessee in the return of income had included that amount and no addition to the returned income was made by the Assessing Officer. [S. 132(4)]

CIT v. Trisha Krishnan. (2018) 170 DTR 209/ 95 Taxmann.com 105 (Mad)(HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed , PCIT v. Trisha Krishnan ( 2019) 267 Taxman 394 (SC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Advance received not shown as income–Revised return filed showing advance as income– Deletion of penalty is held to be justified–TDS deducted but no prof was filed–Levy of penalty was held to be not justified.

CIT v. Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. (2018) 305 CTR 486 / 171 DTR 241 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Notice referred only one ground-Final order on other grounds– Claim of deduction examined by the AO- CIT was not justified in substituting his view–Revision is held to be bad in law. [S. 80IA]

PCIT v. Kochi Refineries (2018) 171 DTR 217 / 305 CTR 395 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue–Captive power plant–Allocation of profit –Revision is held to be not justified. [S.80I, 260A]

D.K. Enterprises v. ITAT (2018) 171 DTR 383 / 99 taxmann.com 151/ 305 CTR 588( 2019) 414 ITR 591 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal- Duty- Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-First miscellaneous application was dismissed– Second miscellaneous application was disposed in chambers without hearing the assessee and without assigning reasons– Held to be unjustified- However considering the peculiar facts of the case the High High Court directed the assessee to pay Rs. 3,25,0000/- (Three crores and twenty five lakhs) as additional tax in respect of on money. [S. 254(1)]

Co-Operative Centrale Reiffeisen-Boereleenbank B. A. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 170 DTR 41/(2019) 411 ITR 699 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal–Duties–Tribunal failed to act as last fact finding authority-It failed to discharge its duty and function expected of it by law-Tribunal set aside the matter to AO-Court held that Tribunal could have summoned all records and thereafter should have arrived at categorical conclusion whether First Appellate Authority was right or AO-This having admittedly not been done, court was of firm opinion that Tribunal failed to act as last fact finding authority—It failed to discharge it duties– Matter remanded to Tribunal—DTAA- India–Netherlands. [Art. 5(5)]

CIT v. Megha Jewells Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 169 DTR 58 (Raj.)(HC)

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)–Addition based on valuation report-There was no reason to refer matter to DVO especially when assessee was not having any income and has not started business during subjected assessment year-Explanation tendered under Rule 46A was found to be satisfactory—Report of DVO was not considered as valid. [S.142A, R.46A]

PCIT v. ITSC (2018) 172 DTR 110 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 245D : Settlement of cases—Voluntary offer of income-Commission computed assessee’s aggregate income which was neither objected by assessee nor by Department—Said suo motu offer in no way detracts from character of full and true disclosure- —Subsequently, all issues in applicant’s case was settled—Held, it was not open to Revenues to challenge correctness of facts recorded in order by Settlement Commission before this Court, particularly when it was not even remotely case of Revenue that consent was given/made on a wrong appreciation of law. [S. 245C]