Year: 2019

Archive for 2019


CIT v. Tara Sinha. (2017) 158 DTR 193/ (2018) 305 CTR 522 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 4 :Charge of income-tax –Non –compete fee-Held to be capital receipt .

G. Bahadur v. K. Visakh ACIT (2018) 259 Taxman 556 (PBPTA-AT)

S. 3 : Prohibiton of benami transaction-Payment of advance salary by employer to its employee to defeat purpose of demonetisation didn’t come under purview of Benami Transaction. [S.24, 46 ]

K. Renuga v. K. Vasakh, ACIT (2018) 259 Taxman 492 (PBPTA-AT)

S. 3 : Prohibiton of benami transaction-Notice and attachment of property involved in benami transaction–Advance salary-existence of ‘benami’ transaction has to be proved by authorities i.e. person who allege transaction Authority had purely gone on premise that cash was transferred from one person to another, with an object to defeat, demonetization, which was insufficient to establish a ‘benami’ transaction–Order of attachment was directed to be released forth with.[S. 24]

P. Ezhilpandian v. K. Visakh, Dy. CIT (2018) 259 Taxman 583 (PBPTA-AT)

S. 3 : Prohibiton of benami transaction – Loan repaid in cash – The existence of the ‘benami’ transaction has to be proved by the authorities, i.e., the person who alleges the transaction-The authorities have failed to discharge the burden of proof- The authority has purely gone on the premise that cash is transferred from one person to another, with an object to defeat, demonetization. This is insufficient to establish a ‘benami’ transaction. [S. 24]

PCIT v. Modipon Ltd. (2018) 100 taxmann.com 57/ 259 Taxman 426 (Delhi)(HC) Editorial : SLP of revenue is dismissed, PCIT v. Modipon Ltd. (2018) 259 Taxman 425 (SC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment-Claimed deduction in respect of payments made to employees under VRS Scheme–Levy of penalty is held to be not justified.[S. 35DDA, 37(1)]

PCIT v. Gruh Finance Ltd. (2018) 100 taxmann.com 103 / 259 Taxman 421 (Guj.)(HC) Editorial : SLP of revenue is dismissed ; PCIT v. Gruh Finance Ltd. (2018) 259 Taxman 420 (SC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty concealment-Disallowance of expenditure- Exempt income–mere disallowance of expenditure cannot be held to be furnishing inaccurate particulars of income–Deletion of penalty is held to be justified. [S. 14A, R.8D]

Elnet Technologies Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 259 Taxman 593 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 249 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Form of appeal and limitation-Delay of 231 days- Affidavit was filed explaining the delay -Revenue has not disputed the correctness of the affidavit–Delay was condoned–Matter remanded to Tribunal to decide on merits.

CIT v. Radio Khaitan Ltd. (2017) 83 taxmann.com 375 (Delhi)(HC) Editorial: SLP dismissed on merit, CIT v. Radio Khaitan Ltd.(2018) 259 Taxman 85 (SC)

S. 245D : Settlement Commission-Unexplained money–Application for Offering the Income of Rs. 27.05 crores–Accepted at Rs.30 crores-Order of settlement commission is held to be valid. [S. 69C, 153A, 245C]

PCIT v. Bank of India (2018) 100 taxmann.com 105 / 259 Taxman 428 (Bom) HC) Editorial : SLP is granted to revenue ; PCIT v. Bank of India (2018) 259 Taxman 427 (SC)

S. 244A : Refund–Interest on refunds–Entitle to interest on refund of excess self assessment tax paid.

Anad Farmers Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. CBDT (2018) 100 taxmann.com 97/259 Taxman 406 (Ker.)(HC) Editorial : SLP of assessee is dismissed, Anad Farmers Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. CBDT (2018) 259 Taxman 405 (SC)

S. 226 : Collection and recovery–Stay–Pendency of appeal before CIT(A)- Directed to deposit only 1% of tax demanded during pendency of appellate Proceedings. [S. 68, 250]