Month: June 2020

Archive for June, 2020


Anand Developers, v ACIT ( 2020) (2020)425 ITR 261 /116 taxmnn.com 361 / 195 DTR 73( Bom) (HC) www.itatonline .org

S. 147: Reassessment -After expiry of four years -A mere bald assertion by the AO that the assessee has not disclosed fully and truly all the material facts is not sufficient. The AO has to give details as to which fact or the material was not disclosed by the assessee, leading to its income escaping assessment. Otherwise, the reopening is not valid [ S. 80IB (10)(f),148 , Art , 226 ]

New Delhi Television Ltd v. Dy.CIT (2020) 424 ITR 607 / 188 DTR 36 / 314 CTR 17/ 116 taxmann.com 151/ 271 Taxman 1 (SC)www.itatonline.org . Editorial : Order in New Delhi Television Ltd v Dy.CIT ( 2017) 84 taxmann.com 136/288 CTR 430 / (2018) 405 ITR 132/ ( Delhi) (HC ) is set aside .

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years- full & true disclosure of material facts, the assessee has the duty to disclose the primary facts, It is not required to disclose the secondary facts – If the AO intends to rely upon the second Proviso to s. 148 for the extended period of 16 years limitation, the same should be stated either in the notice or in the reasons in support of the notice- It cannot be done in the order rejecting the objections or at a later stage – Reassessment was quashed . [ S. 69A, 148 , 149 Art , 226 ]

Rajasthan State Electricity Board v Dy. CIT ( 2020) 424 ITR 704 187 DTR 457/ 313 CTR 745/ 115 taxmann.com 330 / 273 Taxman 1(SC) www.itatonline org Editorial: Order in Dy CIT v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board (2008) 171 Taxman 331 / 299 ITR 253/ 217 CTR (Raj) (HC) is set aside .

S. 143(1A): Assessment -Additional tax – The object of S. 143(1A) is the prevention of evasion of tax- The burden of proving that the assessee has so attempted to evade tax is on the Revenue which may be discharged by establishing facts and circumstances from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the assessee has, in fact, attempted to evade tax lawfully payable by it- Levy of additional tax was quashed . [ S. 32, 143(1) 154 264 Art ,226 ]

Basir Ahmed Sisodiya v ITO ( 2020) 424 ITR 1 /188 DTR 20 /314 CTR 1 /116 taxmann.com 375/ 271 Taxman 247 ( SC) www.itatonline .org

S. 68 : Cash credits -Bogus purchases – Unregistered dealers – Penalty proceedings producing affidavits and statements of unregistered dealers and establishing their credentials Penalty set aside – Addition is held to be not justified . [ S.143(3) ]

Paradigm Geophysical Pvt Ltd. v CIT (IT) ( 2020) 115 taxmann.com 254 / 189 DTR 260/ 315 CTR 522( Delhi) (HC ) www.itatonline.org

S. 44DA : Non-residents – Royalties – Computation – Prevails over S. 44BB after the amendment w.e.f. 01.04.2011 DTAA -India -Australia . [ S.9(1)(vii) 44BB Art . 12 (3) ,Art .226 ]

UOI v Exide Industries Ltd (2020) 425 ITR 1/ 189 DTR 62/ 315 CTR 62 / 273 Taxman 189 (SC) www.itatonline .org

S.43B: Deductions on actual payment – Leave encashment – Method of accounting -Section does not place any embargo upon the autonomy of the assessee in adopting a particular method of accounting, nor deprives the assessee of any lawful deduction. It merely imposes an additional condition of actual payment for the availment of deduction qua the specified head -Provision is not unconstitutional-Interpretation of taxing statutes – Legislature has larger discretion- Enactment invalidated by Court — Legislature free to diagnose law and alter invalid elements — Does not mean legislature declares opinion of court invalid. [ S. 37(1) 43B(f), 145 , Art . 14 ]

UOI v. U.A E .Exchange Centre ( 2020) 425 ITR 30/ 315 CTR 129/ 273 Taxman 122 / 190 DTR 79 (SC) www.itatonline.org .

S. 5 : Scope of total income – liaison office of the non-resident – A liaison office which is only carrying on such activity of a “preparatory or auxiliary” character is not a PE in terms of Article 5 of the DTAA. The deeming provisions in Sections 5 and 9 of the 1961 Act can have no bearing whatsoever- Not liable to tax in India- DTAA-India-UAE [ S. 2(24) , 4 , 9(1)(i) Art , 5 , 7 ]

Yum! Restaurants (Marketing ) Pvt Ltd v CIT ( 2020) 424 ITR 630 / 189 DTR 1/ 313 CTR 37 / 271 Taxman 217 / 116 taxmann.com 374 (SC ) www.itatonline .org 116 taxmann.com 374 (SC ) www.itatonline .org

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Mutuality – Contributions both from members and non-members and one member was vested with powers to control functioning and interests of other members, such an assimilation could not be termed as a social intercourse devoid of commerciality- Assessee, being not a mutual concern, could not be entitled to tax exemption- Exemptions are to be put to strict interpretation- Principle of mutuality is held to be not applicable -Order of AO is affirmed .[ S .2 (24 ) ]

Vijay Kurle & Ors AIR 2020 SC 3927; MANU/SC/0413/2020 (SC) www.itatonline .org .

Contempt Court Act , 1971 .
S.5: Fair criticism of judicial act not contempt -Contempt of Court by Advocates- It is obvious that this is a concerted effort to virtually hold the Judiciary to ransom- All three contemnors are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months each with a fine of Rs. 2000. [Advocate Act .1961 S.7(b) Constitution of India , 1949 Art , 129 142 ]

Vijay Kurle & ors (SC) www.itatonline.org

Contempt Court Act , 1971 .
S.5: Fair criticism of judicial act not contempt – No party has the right to attribute motives to a Judge or to question the bona fides of the Judge or to raise questions with regard to the competence of the Judge- Judges are part and parcel of the justice delivery system- When there is a concerted attack by members of the Bar, the Court cannot shut its eyes to the slanderous and scandalous allegations made. If such allegations are permitted to remain unchallenged then the public will lose faith not only in those particular Judges but also in the entire justice delivery system and this definitely affects the majesty of law. [ Advocate Act , 1961 , S.7 (b) , Constitution of India , 1949 Art , 129 142 ]