Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


Hosdurg Range Kallu Chethu Thozhilali Vyavasaya Sahakarana Sangham v. CIT (2022) 440 ITR 65 / 285 Taxman 133 (Ker) (HC)

S. 80P : Co-operative societies – Society formed for enabling financial and social welfare of toddy tappers and workers for tapping and selling toddy — Could not be considered co-operative society engaged in collective disposal of labour of its members — Eligibility of assessee for deduction as society engaged in marketing of agricultural produce grown by its members — Matter remitted to Tribunal.[S.80P(2)(a)(vi) ]

Jetha Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2022) 440 ITR 524 / 209 DTR 201/ 324 CTR 326 / 286 Taxman 504 (Bom) ( HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure –Capital or revenue – Ware house business – Expenditure for raising floor height of Godown – Expenditure incurred to run the business profitably is revenue expenditure.

PCIT v. Mahagun Realtors Private Limited (SC) www.itatonline .org

S. 143(3): Assessment – Order passed in the name of non-existent amalgamating entity – valid. [ Companies Act, 1956, S. 394 , 481 ]

S. 143(3): Assessment – Order passed in the name of non-existent amalgamating entity – valid. [ Companies Act, 1956, S. 394 , 481 ]

Addl. CIT v. Leena Gandhi Tiwari (2022) 216 TTJ 905 /96 ITR 384 / 212 DTR 105 ( Mum) ( Trib) www.itatonline .org

Black Money ( Undisclosed Foreign Income & Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act , 2015.

S. 43: Penalty for failure to furnish return of income an information , or furnish inaccurate particulars about an asset (including interest in any entity )located outside India- Foreign Bank Account – Signatory for late Mother-Amount was donated to the Charity –Not beneficial owner – Mere no disclosure is not valid ground for levy of penalty – Deletion of penalty was affirmed . [ S.10(3), Income -tax Act , 1961 132(4) 139 , 153A]

Core Metal Krafts Ltd. v. ACIT (2021) 92 ITR 379 (Chd.)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Tax audit disclosing the disallowance of expenses under section 43B-Inadvertently left out while computing the income-Penalty levied was deleted. [S. 43B]

Trio Trend Exports P. Ltd. v. PCIT (2021) 92 ITR 18 (SN) (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Tax deducted at source-Limited scrutiny assessment-Detail verified-No loss to revenue-Revision order was quashed. [S. 143(2), 143(3)]

Dada Ganapati Gur Products Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2021) 92 ITR 408 / 214 TTJ 908 (Hyd.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Share capital issue of shares at premium-Addition on presumption-Revision was held to be not valid. [S. 56(2)(viib), R. 11UA(2)(b)]

Vinayaka Microns (India) P. Ltd. v. PCIT (2021)92 ITR 5 (SN) (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Valuation report from Merchant Banker-Fair market value higher than price at which shares issued-Order not erroneous. [S. 56(2)(viib), R. 11UA(2)]

Alfa Laval Lund Ab v. CIT(IT) (2021) 92 ITR 4 (SN) / (2022) 210 DTR 313 (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Revision based on proposal of Assessing Officer recommending a revision is illegal. [S. 143(3)]

Adihemshree Financial v. PCIT (2021)92 ITR 39 (SN) (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Loss on trading of shares-Possible view-Revision is not valid-Audit objection-PCIT independently applying mind-Objection is not tenable. [S. 143(3)]