Year: 2020

Archive for 2020


CIT v. I.G. Petrochemicals Ltd. (2020) 185 DTR 225 / 314 CTR 857(Karn.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Unabsorbed depreciation–No failure to disclose material facts–Reassessment is held to be bad in law. [S. 32, 148, 149]

S. S. Landmarks v. ITO (2020) 185 DTR 149 / 312 CTR 402/ 274 Taxman 331 (Bom.) (HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Housing projects–Completion certificate–No failure to disclose material facts–Reassessment notice is held to be bad in law. [S.80(IB)(10), 148, Art.226]

Engineering professional Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2020) 186 DTR 33 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 143(3) : Assessment–Direction of appellate Tribunal-Decide the issue a fresh-AO cannot go beyond the direction-Writ of the assessee is allowed. [S. 44AD, 254(1), Art.226]

NBCC (India) Ltd. v. Addl.CIT (2020) 422 ITR 429/ 186 DTR 1/ 313 CTR 254/ 313 CTR 254/ 272 Taxman 65 (Delhi)(HC), Editorial : Notice is issued in SLP filed against the order of High Court NBCC (India) Ltd v .Addl.CIT ( 2020) 275 Taxman 1 ( SC)/ SLP of assessee is dismissed , NBCC (INDIA) Ltd. v. AddI. CIT (2023) 458 ITR 753 /294 Taxman 339 (SC)

S. 142(2A) : Inquiry before assessment–Special audit–Opportunity of hearing was given–Writ to quash the special audit is dismissed. [S. 142(1)]

Bandish Saurabh Soparkar v. UOI (2020) 312 CTR 545 / 186 DTR 141 / 113 taxman.com 416/ 272 Taxman 145 (Guj.) (HC)

S. 139A : Permanent account number–Petitioner would not be in default in any proceedings only for the reason that the permanent account number is not linked with Aadhaar or Aadhaar number is not quoted; and that pending the petition, the petitioner may not be subjected to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 139AA of the Act. [S. 39AA(2), Art. 226]

Khem Chand Mukim v. PCIT (2020) 423 ITR 129/186 DTR 145 /113 taxmann.com 529 / 270 Taxman 252/ 313 CTR 14(Delhi)(HC).Editorial: Review petition of revenue is dismiised , Khem Chand Mukim v. PDIT (Inv.) (2021) 277 Taxman 222/ 201 DTR 70/ 320 CTR 781 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 132 : Search and seizure–Reason to believe-Recording of satisfaction-Jewellery-Stock in trade-No cogent basis for arriving at conclusion that assessee was in possession of jewellery which represented his undisclosed income or property was discernible from satisfaction note, impugned search and seizure was to be quashed and all actions taken pursuant to such search and seizure were to be declared illegal-The respondents were ordered to pay costs quantified at Rs. 50,000. . [S. 132B, Art. 226]

Vasudev AdigasFast Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. CBDT (2020) 186 DTR 89 / 314 CTR 852 (Karn.)(HC) Editorial : Affirmed by division Bench , Vasudev Adigas Fast Food (P) Ltd; CBDT v. (2021) 437 ITR 67 / 282 Taxman 48/ 323 CTR 235 (Karn) (HC)

S. 119 : Central Board of Direct Taxes-Return-Condonation of delay-Genuine hardship–Should be construed liberally-Order being cryptic-Delay is condoned. [S.119 (2)(b), 139. Art. 226, 227]

CIT v. Ing Vysya Bank Ltd. (2020)422 ITR 116/ 186 DTR 193/ 313 CTR 69/ 270 Taxman 162 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 115JB : Book profit-Banking company–Provision is not applicable to banking company. [S. 115JB(2), Companies Act, 1956, S 211(1)]

CIT v. Syndicate Bank (2020) 186 DTR 200 / 313 CTR 576 (Karn.) (HC)

S. 115JA : Book profit–Banking company–Provision is not applicable.

PCIT v. Texport Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 186 DTR 50 / 313 CTR 485/ 271 Taxman 170(Karn.)(HC)

S. 92CA : Reference to transfer pricing officer–Clause(i) of Section 92BA of the Act had been omitted by Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01.04.2017 and as such it came to be held that proceedings would lapse. [S. 92BA)]