Year: 2020

Archive for 2020


Tata Education and Development Trust v .ACIT (2020) 117 taxmann.com 500 (Mum) (Trib) www.itatonline .org .

S. 254(2A): Appellate Tribunal –Stay- Special Bench – Amendment in first proviso to s. 254(2A) by the Finance Act 2020,- whether directory or mandatory – Reference to special Bench .[ S.253 ]

Renu T Tharani (Ms) v .Dy.CIT (IT) ( 2020) 184 ITD 565/ 192 DTR 9/ 206 TTJ 521 (Mum) (Trib) www.itatonline.org

S.147: Reassessment – Non -Resident- information from investigation wing of the income tax department- Return the asseeee has shown as resident –Foreign Bank deposits- Reassessment is held to be valid [ S.6(1) ,9(1), 148 ]

Renu T Tharani (Ms) v .Dy.CIT (IT) ( 2020) 184 ITD 565/ 192 DTR 9/ 206 TTJ 521 (Mum) (Trib) www.itatonline.org

S. 69 :Unexplained investments- Cash credits – Sole beneficiary of trust – Foreign Bank depositsThe sum of Rs 196 crore held by HSBC Pvt Bank, Switzerland, in the name of Tharani Family Trust, of which the assessee was a beneficiary, is assessable as the undisclosed income of the assessee. [ S.68 , 147 , 148 ]

Suresh Kumar Agarwal v. ACIT (2020) 117 taxmann.com 678( Delhi) (Trib) www.itatonline.org

S. 10(38) : Long term capital gains from equities -Penny stocks – Produced contract notes, demat statements etc & discharged the onus of proving that the shares were bought and sold -Merely relying upon the statement of investigation wing , the transaction cannot be treated as bogus- Denial of exemption is held to be not valid – Reassessment is held to be valid . [ S.45 , 68 147 ,148 ]

Exotica Housing & Infrastructure Company Pvt. Ltd v . ITO (2020) 82 ITR 46 / 207 TTJ 992 (Delhi) (Trib) www.itatonline.org

S. 2(22)(e):Deemed dividend- Deeming provision should be construed strictly- Advances given for purely temporary financial accommodation for business purposes does not attract the deeming fiction.

Gateway Leasing Pvt. Ltd v. ACIT ( 2020) 426 ITR 228 / 272 Taxman 255 / 194 DTR 57/ 317 CTR 9/ 272 Taxman 255(Bom) (HC) www.itatonline.org

S.147: Reassessment- After the expiry of four years- Bogus capital gains- Penny stocks- Information was received from the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department- The assessee disclosed the primary facts to the AO & also explained the queries put by the AO- It cannot be said that the assessee did not disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment- Reassessment is held to be not valid [ S. 45 , 148 ]

ACIT v. Marico Ltd ( 2020) 272 Taxman 179 / 192 DTR 109/ 315 CTR 159 (SC) www.itatonline .org.Editorial : Marico Ltd v ACIT 2019) 311 CTR 865 / 183 DTR 353/ 111 taxmann.com 253 (Bom.) (HC) (Bom(HC ) is affirmed ( WP No 1917 of 2019 21-08 -2019 )

S. 147 : Reassessment –With in four years- Change of opinion -Book profit- The reasons in support of the notice is the very issue in respect of which the AO had raised a query during the assessment proceedings-The non-rejection of the explanation in the Assessment Order amounts to the AO accepting the view of the assessee, thus taking a view/forming an opinion- Reassessment on a mere change of opinion and would be completely without jurisdiction [ S.115JB , 148, Companies Act , 1956 , S.211(6) ]

In Re Cognizance for extension of limitation v .Ors ( 2020) 9 SCC 468; MANU/SC/ 0654/ 2020 (SC) www.itatonline.org

Constitution of India , 1949 . Art.141 :Covid -19 – Extension of limitation period due to Covid-19 Lock down- Service of all notices, summons and exchange of pleadings may be effected by e-mail, FAX, WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal etc in addition to service of the same document by e-mail simultaneously on the same date- The Reserve Bank of India may consider whether the validity period of a cheque under the Negotiable Instruments Act should be extended or not [ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 S.23(4),29A, Banking Regulation Act,1949, S.35A, Commercial Courts Act, 2015 ,S.12A Constitution of India, 1949 , Art 141 , Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,S.46 Limitation Act 1908 , S.5 ]

S. D. Joshi & Ors v. High Court of Judicature at Bombay & Ors. AIR 2011 SC 848

Constitution of India , 1949
Art. 217(2) : Judicial office- Elevation to High Court – Family Court has all trappings of Court – Therefore is a court – However Judges of Family Court do not hold, Judicial Office- Not eligible to be considered for elevation as High Court Judges . [ Art , 233(2) 236 , Family Courts Act , 1984 , S 3 ]

S.N.D.P Sakhayagam v .Kerala Atmavidya Sangam and ors ( 2017) 8 SCC 835

S.260A :Appeal -High Court – Substantial question of law- High Court in second appeal cannot reverse the concurrent finding of Courts below ,without framing a substantial question of law . [ Civil procedure code 1908 , S.100 ]