Year: 2019

Archive for 2019


Ramprakash Biswanath Shroff v. CIT (TDS) (2018) 259 Taxman 385( Bom) (HC) www.itatonline.org Editorial: Petioner has received the TDS certificate accordingly the petition was herad and decided .( WPNo. 2537 of 2018 dt 11-1-2019) Ramprakash Biswanath Shroff v. CIT (TDS) ( Bom) (HC)

S. 200 : Deduction at source – Duty of person deducting tax -Employer -Failure to issue Form no 16 after deducting tax at source from salary- Commissioner (TDS) is directed to file a comprehensive affidavit and Department of Revenue was also to be directed to penalise such defaulters and take other strict measures as contemplated by law against them by launching prosecution as per S.405 of the Indian Penal code ( Criminal breach of trust). [ S.192 ,Indian Penal Code S. 405 ]

South Asia FM Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 259 Taxman 266 /(2019) 413 ITR 205(Mad) (HC)

S.147:Reassessment- Cash credits -Share capital- On the basis of information from CBI that the receipts were camouflaged as capital receipts- Considering fact that there were materials and informations on record with revenue-Reopening of assessment was done to verify the genuineness of the investment – R reassessment is in accordance with law- Reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer need not be communicated along with the notice itself – Notice issued for purpose of reopening of assessment would not provide a cause of action for filing writ petitions . [ S.68, 143(1),148 ]

PCIT v. Broadway Shoe Co. (2018) 259 Taxman 223 (J & K)(HC)

S.143(3): Assessment- Reassessment – Notice- When return was not filed in compliance of notice issued under S. 148, issue of notice under S 143(2) is not required for making assessment. [ S. 139 ,142(1), 143(3), 148]

Srinidhi Karti Chidambaram & Ors v PCIT ( 2018) 172 DTR 113 /305 CTR 689 /( 2019) 411 ITR 1 ( Mad) (HC)Editorial: Decision of single judge Srinidhi Karti Chidambaram. v. CIT (2018) 404 ITR 578 / 255 Taxman 495/166 DTR 17/302 CTR 353 (Mad) (HC)Editorial: Decision of single judge Srinidhi Karti Chidambaram. v. CIT (2018) 404 ITR 578 / 255 Taxman 495/166 DTR 17/302 CTR 353 (Mad) (HC)

Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015,

S. 55: Sanction- Return of income has many schedules are part of income referred to S.139 of the Act- Offence under S.50 of the Black money Act is made out only if, in the return of income under sub S. (1) or sub s.(4) or sub s.(5) of the income -tax Act , there has been a wilful failure to disclosure any information relating to foreign asset – On facts the asset was disclosed in Schedule FA and in the case of Karti Chidambaram , in the original return of income filed and other three cases in the revised return of income filed with in due date ; sanctioning authority has come to an erroneous conclusion that the case deserve prosecution for non-doscloure of the details of the asset in the return of income filed under S.139(1) . Sanction order was set aside , offences under S.50 is not made out consequently , complaints filed are quashed . However , contention of the assesses that the Principal Director of Income -tax is not an authority , jurisdiction /competence under S.55 of the Black Money Act , to sanction prosecution or file a prosecution complaint for offences under S.50 of the Black Money Act is not accepted .[ S. 2(11), 2(12), 4, 49, 50 59, 84 , ITACT, S.139, Art .14 ]