Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


Neetaa Suneel Shah (Smt.) v .ITO (2019) 266 Taxman 40/ 196 DTR 253/ 317 CTR 789 (Mad) (HC)

S. 254(2A): Appellate Tribunal –Stay- Deposited 71 per cent of tax demand raised in reassessment proceedings- Tribunal is not justrified in rejecting the stay – Balance amount of tax and interest was to be stayed till disposal of assessee appeal. [ S.226, 254(1) ]

C. Naveen Kumar v .ITO ( 2019 ) 266 Taxman 74 ( Mad) (HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment – Legal represenntaive – Liability – Not inherited anything from his father- Huge deposits prior to death – Reassessment is held to be bad in law . [ S..144, 148 159, Art .226 ]

P.N.Shetty v ITO ( 2019) 181 DTR 97/ 310 CTR 359/ 266 Taxman 15 ( Karn) (HC) Editorial: Affirmed in P.N. Shetty. v ITO (2020) 268 Taxman 226 (Karn) (HC)

S.54F : Capital gains- Investment in a residential house – The assessee is entitled to the withdrawal of the amount deposited under Sub-Section (4) of Section 54F of the Act under the capital gain account subject to deduction of tax applicable to the case on hand. [ S.45, 54F(4) ]

;Avaya India P. Ltd v ACIT ( 2019) 416 ITR 638/ 310 CTR 633/ 182 DTR 89 / 267 Taxman 351 (Delhi) (HC).Editorial: SLP of revenue was dismissed due to low tax effect,ACIT v. Avaya India (P) Ltd. (2021) 277 Taxman 402 (SC)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arm’s length price – Selection of comparables -Comparision with high brand value and higher scale of operations and profit margin to be excluded – Comparables have to be functionally similar but they should have similar business environment and risks as the tested party- Tribunal order is set aside .[ S.144C ]

S. P. Mani and Mohan Dairy v. ACIT (2019)418 ITR 703 / 183 DTR 321 / 267 Taxman 450/ 311 CTR 631 (Mad) (HC)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years- Asset written off and factory land development charges – No allegation of failure to disclose material facts- No new facts- Notice of reassessment is held to be invalid .[ S. 148 ]

CIT v. Vam Resorts and Hotels P. Ltd. (2019)418 ITR 723/( 2020) 186 DTR 205/ 314 CTR 555 (All (HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Record – Pendency of appeal before CIT (A) -Order passed after considering all Details-Revision is held to be not valid .[ S. 40A(3), 250, 263 , Expln.1(c)]

Grasim Industries Ltd v Dy.CIT ( 2019) 267 Taxman 524/ 184 DTR 42 ( Bom) (HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery – Assessee deemed in default – Stay – Pendency of appeal before CIT(A) – Application for stay of recovery can be made before the CIT(A) to stay the demand still disposal of appeal by the CIT (A) [ S. 115Q, 220 (6) , 246A, 264 , Art .226 ]

Piramal Investment Opportinites Fund v ACIT ( 2019) 267 Taxman 297/ 182 DTR 305/ 311 CTR 4 ( Bom) (HC)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake – Pendency of appeal or revision is no bar on the AO on power of amendment or rectification -Matter did not assume character of a sub-judice matter . [ S.154(IA) , Art .226 ]

General Insurance Corporation of India v .ACIT ( 2019) 311 CTR 851/ 267 Taxman 596 / 184 DTR 249/ (2020)422 ITR 248 ( Bom) (HC) .

S. 220 : Collection and recovery – Assessee deemed in default – Stay – Relevant consideration – Conflicting decisions of Tribunal- Complete stay of demand may be granted -Decision of Jurisdictional High Court is binding on the CIT(A) – Stay was granted [ S. 220(6) , Art .226 ]

Marico Ltd v ACIT ( 2019) 311 CTR 865 / 183 DTR 190 /(2020) 425 ITR 177 ( Bom) (HC)

S.147: Reassessment – Change of opinion- Amortisation of barnd value – Query raised and responded – Issue examined in the original assessment proceedings – Reassessement is held to be bad in law [ S.115JB 148 , Art .226 ]