Year: 2019

Archive for 2019


Pawan Kumar v. Babulal (2019) 263 Taxman 354 (SC)

S. 4 : Suit for declaration of title with respect to premises – Plea raised by appellant was barred under S. 4 or not could not have been subject matter of assessment at stage when application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was taken up for consideration -Court directed the Trial Court to expedite the matter and dispose of the pending suit as early as possible and preferably within six months. [Code of Civil Procedure, Order 1908 VII Rule 11]

CIT v. Ajanta Pharma Ltd. (2019)105 taxmann.com 160/ 263 Taxman 353 (Bom) (HC) Editorial: Appeal of revenue is dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on low tax effect .CIT v. Ajanta Pharma Ltd. (2019) 263 Taxman 352 (SC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Quantum deleted-Levy of penalty was quashed.

PCIT v. Deccan Mining Syndicate (P.) Ltd. (2019) 105 taxmann.com 277/ 263 Taxman 449 (Karn.)(HC) PCIT v. Deccan Mining Syndicate (P.) Ltd. (2019) 105 taxmann.com 137 / 263 Taxman 342 (Karn.)(HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed , PCIT v. Deccan Mining Syndicate (P.) Ltd. (2019) 263 Taxman 448 (SC)/ PCIT v. Deccan Mining Syndicate (P.) Ltd. (2019) 263 Taxman 341 (SC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Excess stock–Deletion of penalty and also quantum of addition is held to be valid. [S. 145]

PCIT v. Shree Gayatri Associates (2019) 263 Taxman 673 (Guj.)(HC) Editorial : SLP of revenue is dismissed , PCIT v. Shree Gayatri Associates (2019) 263 Taxman 672 (SC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue–On money-Order passed by the AO after detailed enquiries-Revision is held to be bad in law. [S. 69]

PCIT v. Nokia India (P.) Ltd. (2019) 263 Taxman 460 (SC) Editorial : Order in (ITA No.854 of 2016 dt. 21-4-2017) PCIT v. Nokia India (P.) Ltd (2019) 104 taxmann.com 467/ 263 Taxman 463 ( Delhi ) (HC) is set aside.

S. 260A : High Court-Question of law-Reassessment-Book profit– Provisions-High Court was not justified in dismissing appeal on ground that appeal did not Involve any substantial question of law and case was remanded to High Court for deciding revenue’s appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law after framing substantial question of law in accordance with law. [S. 115JB, 147, 148]

PCIT v. BMW India (P.) Ltd. (2019) 105 taxmann.com 135 / 263 Taxman 340 (P & H)(HC) Editorial : SLP of the revenue is dismissed as infructuous as the main appeal is disposed by the Appellate Tribunal, PCIT v. BMW India (P.) Ltd. (2019) 263 Taxman 339 (SC)

S. 254(2A) : Appellate Tribunal–Stay–Stay of demand would not stand vacated after expiry of a period of 365 days, if delay in disposal of appeal was not attributable to assessee. [S. 254(1)]

PCIT (C) v. ITSC (2019) 263 Taxman 698/ 178 DTR 329 / 310 CTR 46 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 245D : Settlement Commission – Passing of order u/s 245D(3) is the discretionary of the Settlement Commission – Revenue cannot insist that the Settlement Commission must pass the order before proceeding further under S.245D(4) of the Act. [S.245D(2)(C), 245D(3), 245D(4)]

Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2019) 263 Taxman 680 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 237 : Refunds–Mismatch-Department cannot withhold refund payable to assessee on the ground that the computer system could not rectify the error–Directed to release the refund.

CIT(IT) v. Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd. (2019) 105 taxmann.com 311 / 263 Taxman 476 (Delhi) (HC) Editorial: SLP is granted to the revenue, CIT(IT) v. Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd. (2019) 263 Taxman 475 (SC)

S. 234B : Interest-Advance tax–Non-resident-,Entire tax was to be deducted at source -Not liable to pay interest for failure to pay advance tax.

ARCIL Retail Loan Portfolio001-D-Trust v. PCIT (2019) 263 Taxman 508 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 226 : Collection and recovery-Stay–Pendency of appeal before CIT (A)- Similar addition was decided in favour of other assessee by the CIT(A) -AO cannot direct the Assessee to deposit 20 percent of tax demanded. [S. 246A]