Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


CIT v. Karnatka Power Corporation ( 2021 ) 127 taxmann.com 282 ( Karn) (HC) Editorial : SLP granted to the revenue , CIT v. Karnatka Power Corporation ( 2021 ) 280 Taxman 1 / 127 taxmann.com 283 ( SC)

S. 115JB : Book profit – Provision is held to be not applicable .[ S.260A ]

CIT v. Vijay Bank ( 2021 ) 126 taxmann.com 166 ( Karn) (HC) Editorial: SLP granted to the revenue , CIT v. Vijay Bank ( 2021 ) 280 Taxman 235/ 126 taxmann.com 167 ( SC) CIT v. Vijay Bank ( 2021 ) 126 taxmann.com 166 ( Karn) (HC) Editorial: SLP granted to the revenue , CIT v. Vijay Bank ( 2021 ) 280 Taxman 235/ 126 taxmann.com 167 ( SC)

S. 115JB : Book profit – Banking companies – Provisions are not applicable to banking companies [ Banking Regulation Act, 1939 ]

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd . ) v .UOI (2018) 97 taxmann.com 585 (SC) Editorial : Affirmed in Rehhar Foundation v. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy ( 2021 ) 278 Taxman 1/ 123 taxmann.com 344 (SC)

S. 139AA : Return of income – Quoting of Aadhar number – Inclusion of Aadhaar in Income-tax Act valid – Section 139AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, pass the test of proportionality (right to privacy v. legitimate State interest) – Not unconstitutional [ Art , 14 , 16 ]

Sozin Flora Pharma LLP v. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 2021 Himachal Pradesh 44

Limited liability Partnership Act , ( 6 of 2009 )

S. 58(1) : Registration and effect of conversion – The identity of the firm as a legal entity changes – Stamp duty and registration fee cannot be levied upon conversion of a partnership firm to LLP- The Transfer of assets of firm to LLP is by operation of law . [ S. 55, 58 (4)(b), Registration Act , 17, Stamp Act . S.3 , H.P Tenancy and Land Reforms Act ,(8 of 1974 ) S.118 ]

Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. v. TRO ( Bom)(HC) (UR)

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act , 2002 ( SARFAESI Act, 2002)

S. 13(2): Enforcement of security interest – Recovery of Dues – Priority of debtor – The charge of secured creditor would have priority over Government dues under the Income- Tax Act. [ S. 3. 13(4),34(1), 35 , ITACT, S. 226 , Art , 226 ]

ITO v. D. K. Shivakumar (2021) 434 ITR 367 / 200 DTR 273 / 320 CTR 182 (Karn.)(HC).Editorial: Notice issued in SLP filed by Revenue , ITO v.D. K. Shivakumar( 2023) 290 Taxman 106 ( SC)

S. 276C : Offences and prosecutions-Wilful attempt to evade tax-No evidence that transactions resulted in liability to tax, interest or penalty-Prosecution not valid-Special Court gets jurisdiction only on complaint by competent Authority it cannot take Special cognizance of Offences. [S. 132, 280B, 280D, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S. 200, 245]

Aafreen Fatima Fazal Abbas Sayed v. ACIT (2021) 434 ITR 504 / 202 DTR 1/ 280 Taxman 429 / 321 CTR 583(Bom.)(HC)

S. 264 : Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Appeal filed after expiry of time limit-Revision application is held to be valid. [S. 143(1)(a), 246A, 264(4), Art. 226]

Vrundavan Ginning and Oil Mill v. Assistant Registrar (2021) 434 ITR 583/ 205 DTR 46 / 323 CTR 1067/ ( 2020) 284 Taxman 410 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Jurisdiction limited to correcting error apparent on face of record-Tribunal cannot review its earlier order or rectify error of law or reappreciate facts. [S. 253, 254(1), 260A]

P.T. Manuel and Sons v. CIT (2021) 434 ITR 416 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Contradiction in earlier order-No error apparent on record-Tribunal wrongly recalled the order-Failure by Tribunal to consider applicability of explanation to Section 271(1) (c)-Rectification is held to be not valid. [S. 271(1)(c)]

Anil Kumar Nevatia v. ITO (2021) 434 ITR 261 / 203 DTR 92 / 278 Taxman 235/ 321 CTR 368 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Limitation-Actual date of receipt of order of Tribunal. [S. 253, 268]