Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


CIT v. Wescare (India) Ltd. (2021) 439 ITR 657 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Capital or revenue-Sale of emission reduction credit-Capital receipt. [S. 28(i)]

CIT v. ABB Ltd. (2021)439 ITR 554 /(2022) 284 Taxman 350 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Capital or revenue-Non-compete fee-Sharing customer database and sharing of trained employees-Fee received is not taxable. [S. 28(i)]

Kalyan Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. v . Initiating Officer, Dy. CIT (Benami Prohibition) (2021)439 ITR 62//( 2022) / 285 Taxman 335 (Raj)(HC)

Prohibition Of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988

S. 3 : Prohibition of benami Transactions — Purchase of agricultural land – Act not applicable to companies — Action under Act should be taken within reasonable period – Provisional attachment order was set aside [S. 2(12), 2(24), 19(1)(b), 23, 24(4), Limitation Act , 1963, Rajasthan Land Revenue Act , 1956 , S 90B Art , 226 ]

Maheshbhai Shantilal Patel v .PCIT (2021)439 ITR 112/ (2022) 284 Taxman 694/ 210 DTR 8/ 325 CTR 75 (Guj) (HC)

Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020

S.2(1)(a): Appellant – Pendency of appeal – Condonation of delay – Appeal Of Declarant Should Be Pending —Order condoning delay passed on 23-2-2021 — Appeal of declaration deemed to be pending on specified date 31-1-2020 — Declaration Valid – Directed the Designated Authority to accept the declaration . [ S. 2(n)- Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation of certain Provisions)

Indian Agro Food Ltd v. State Bank of India AIR 2022 MP 1

Art. 141 : Precedent – Judgement of Supreme Court – Cannot be construed as statute – Decision of Court should be understood by taking into account factual context in mind .

Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2022)442 ITR 1 / 286 Taxman 200 / 211 DTR 73/ 325 CTR 121 (SC) .www.itatonline .org Editorial : Finance Act , 2022 amended the section 37 (1) provision with effect from 1-4 -2022 clarifying that the expression “ expenditure incurred by an assessee for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law .

S. 37(1): Business expenditure – Explanation 1 – Freebies given to doctors – Prohibited by law – Disallowed as expense – Interpretation -Taxing statutes to be interpreted strictly.-Strict interpretation should not result in absurdity contrary to intention of Parliament [Medical Council Act, 1956, S. 20A , Medical Council (professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, R. 6.8 , Contract Act , 1872 , S. 23 , General Clauses Act , 1897, S.2(38) , Indian Penal Code ,1860, S. 40, 43 ]

JM Financial Foundation v. CIT (Mum) ( Trib ) www.itatonline .org

S. 263: Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – CSR funds received – Specific projects – Not income of the trust – sustainable view taken by the Ld. AO – Order of revision set aside. [S. 2(24), 11 ]

Kirti v. Oriental Insurance Co Ltd ( 2021 ) 2 SCC 166

Motor Vehicles Act 1988.

S. 168 : Compensation – Concession by Counsel is not binding upon court – Waiver of rights of clients – Estoppel , Acquiescence and waiver .

Madhvendra L. Bhatnagar v. Bhavna Lall ( 2021 ) 2 SCC 775

The Advocates Act , 1961
S. 35: Punishment for Advocates for misconduct – Advocate advising his client that appeal pending before Supreme Court will not succeed at all – Held is a professional Misconduct – Needs to be proceeded with .

PCIT v. National Stock Exchange (2021) 323 CTR 1025 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 98 : Securities Transaction tax-Short collection of tax-Interest and penalty-Purchase or sold through a broker registered with the stock exchange-Stock exchange was not liable to any interest and penalty. [S. 15, 99, 104, Securities Transaction Tax Rules, 2004, R. 3]