Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


Ashok Kumar Subba v. Bomal Kumar Jain (2022) 287 Taxman 240 / 113 CCH 331 (Sikkim)(HC)

Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988

S. 2(9): Benami transactions – Transactions or arrangements – Failure to produce documents to prove income – Property purchased in the name of wife – Sale agreement is valid .[ S. 2(9)(A)(b)(iii) ]

Sadhana R. Jain v. CBDT (2022) 449 ITR 155/ 287 Taxman 562 /218 DTR 214 / 328 CTR 872 (SC) Editorial : Order of High Court set aside , Sadhana R.Jain v CBDT ( 2019) 174 DTR 385/ 307 CTR 207 / 103 taxmann.com 70 (Bom) (HC)

Income Declaration Scheme of 2016,
S. 195 : Power to remove difficulties-Not depositing the first instalment with in time-Board refusing to condonation of delay-Concession and excess indulgence would have demotivating effect on honest taxpayers making regular and prompt tax deposit-Dismissal of application is held to be not justified. [S. 184, ITA, S. 119,(2),(Art.14]

Jayant Nanda v. UOI (2022) 287 Taxman 201 /113 CCH 352 (Delhi)( HC)

Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015
S.10(1): Assessment – No summons are pending – Permitted to travel to UAE and Thailand, with a direction that he shall return to India on or before 6-4-2022, subject to furnishing of security as specified and subject to furnishing a full itinerary of his stay at UAE and Thailand, along with a functional phone number [ Art , 226 ]

Mylan Laboratories Ltd v. Addl .JCIT (2022)446 ITR 734 / 287 Taxman 40// 220 DTR 105/ 329 DTR 502 (Telangana)(HC)

S. 32: Depreciation –Good will- Order of Tribunal – Binding precedent – Decision of Tribunal is binding unless there is stay [ 144C , 254(1) , Art , 226 ]

Mylan Laboratories Ltd. v. NFAC (2022)446 ITR 734 / 287 Taxman 40 // 220 DTR 105/ 329 DTR 502(Telangana) (HC)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel – Draft assessment order — Depreciation – Binding precedent – Decision of Supreme Court binding on all Courts and all authorities- Appellate Tribunal – Decision of Tribunal is binding on all authorities [ S. 32, 144C ,(8), 254(1) , Art , 226 ]

Mylan Laboratories Ltd. v. NFAC (2022) 446 ITR 734 / 287 Taxman 40 /220 DTR 105/ 329 DTR 502 (Telangana)(HC)

Interpretation-Binding precedent-Decision of Supreme Court binding on all Courts and all authorities-Appellate Tribunal-Decision of Tribunal is binding on all authorities. [S. 144C, 254(1), Art. 226]

PCIT v. Wipro Ltd. (2022) 446 ITR 1 / 216 DTR 1 / 327 CTR 381/ 288 Taxman 491 / 140 taxmann.com 223 (SC)

Interpretation of taxing statutes–Literal construction-Exemption provisions-Assessee Must Strictly Comply With Conditions. [[S. 10B(5), 10B(8), 72, 80, 139(1), 139(3), 139(5)]

G. P. Engineering Works Kachhwa v. UOI (2022) 446 ITR 563 // ( 2023) 332 CTR 104/ 224 DTR 257/ ( 2023) 332 CTR 104/ 224 DTR 257(All.) (HC)

S. 279 : Offences and prosecutions-Sanction-Chief Commissioner-Commissioner-Wilful attempt to evade tax-Application for compounding of offences-Limitation-Show-cause notice issued for rejection of compounding of offences on ground of Bar of limitation relying on Circular issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes-Circular cannot override statutory provision-Authority to consider application in accordance with law. [S. 276C, 277, 278B, 279(2), Art. 226]

PCIT v. Universal Music India Pvt. Ltd. (2022)446 ITR 287 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Issue not referred in the notice of revision-Order of revision on such issue-Not valid. [S. 40A(2)(b)]

CIT v. Accel Limited (2022) 446 ITR 47 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income-Formula not applicable to AY. 2002-03-Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 14A,R. 8D]