Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


Aditya Marine Ltd v. DCIT ( 2019) 183 DTR 89/ 311 CTR 695 (Bom)(HC),www.itatonline.org

S. 264 :Commissioner – Revision of other orders -Non grant of refund – Not an appellable order – Subject to revision- Alternative remedy is available- Writ is not maintainable [ S. 197 ,246A, Art .226 ]

Voivo Group India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (Bang)(Trib),www.itatonline.org

S. 254(2A): Appellate Tribunal –Stay- Recovery of tax – Substantial payment of tax in dispute was paid – Stay was granted. [ S.220(6) , 245 ]

PCIT v. Nokia Solutions & Networks India Pvt. Ltd.( 2019) 184 DTR 385/( 2020) 312 CTR 373 (Delhi)(HC), www.itatonline.org

S. 254(2A): Appellate Tribunal –Stay- In cases where there is stay of recovery of demand of tax, the Tribunal should deal with the appeals pending before it on a higher priority. The Tribunal should consider forming a separate list of such cases which should be heard on priority after arranging the cases on the basis of their seniority as well as the quantum involved in the stay. [ S.254(1)

M3M India Holding Pvt. Ltd. v. ITSC ( 2019) 419 ITR 1/311 CTR 941 / 184 DTR 93/ (2020) 269 Taxman 425 (P &H) (HC), www.itatonline.org.Editorial: SLP dismissed on ground of delay of 137 days was not explained in preferring petition, PCIT (Cent.) v. M3M India Holdings (P) Ltd. (2022) 287 Taxman 90/ 114 CCH 37 (SC)

S. 245C : Settlement Commission – Settlement of cases – Conditions – Pendency of the assessment – An assessment would be pending till such time as the assessment order is served upon the assessee-Rejection of petition is held to be not valid . [ S. 245A (b) , 245(C) (1) , 245D(1) ]

JDC Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT ( 2019) 184 DTR 377 (Delhi)(Trib), www.itatonline.org

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake – Reassessment – After conclusion of reassessment proceedings addition cannot be made by taking aid of explanation 3 to S. 147 . [ S.147 , 148 ]

Goodyear India Ltd. v. CIT ( 2019) 311 CTR 260/ 183 DTR 57 / ( 2020) 269 Taxman 6 (SC),www.itatonline.org Editorial: From the judgement in CIT v . Goodyear India Ltd ( 2008 ) 9 DTR 107/ 173 Taxman 377 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 143(3): Assessment – Method of accounting -Undisclosed income – Admission by a letter without-prejudice offer cannot be treated as admission of non-disclosure or as an unconditional offer to pay tax. Also, the disclosure is by the USA Co and not by the assessee- It is not the case of the Dept that the amount has been received in the accounts of the assessee or spent for and on behalf of the assessee so as to be treated as undisclosed income of the assessee. [ S.69, 145 ]

PCIT v. Iven Interactive Ltd ( 2019) 418 ITR 662 / 311 CTR 165/ 182 DTR 473 / 267 Taxman 471 (SC), www.itatonline.org Editorial : Order in PCIT v. Iven Interactive Ltd (Bom) (HC) , (ITA No. 94 of 2016 dt 27 -06 -2018) ( 2019) 418 ITR 665 (Bom) (HC) is set aside .

S. 143(2):Assessment – Notice – Mere mentioning of new address in the return of income is not enough-.If change of address is not specifically intimated to the AO, he is justified in sending the notice at the address mentioned in PAN database- If the notice is sent within the period prescribed in s. 143(2), actual service of the notice upon the assessee is immaterial- CIT (A) is directed to decide the appeal on merits . [ S.250, 282 , 292BB ]

CIT v. Odeon Builders Pvt.Ltd ( 2019) 418 ITR 315/ 311 CTR 258/ 183 DTR 25/ 266 Taxman 463.(SC),www.itatonline.org

S. 69 :Unexplained investments – Review -Tax effect less than Rs .1 crore-Bogus purchases- Assessemnt – Addition cannot be made without providing a copy of the statements and opportunity of cross examination- Initial burden is discharged by the assessee by producing various documentation including purchase bills, transportation bills, confirmed copy of accounts and the fact of payment through cheques, & VAT Registration of the sellers & their income -tax return. [ S.68, 143(3), 161, 268A ]

ITO v. Citymaker Builder Pvt. Ltd. (Mum)(Trib), www.itatonline.org

S. 68: Cash credits -Bogus share capital- Authorities have not done even the bare minimum for verifying the genuineness of the transaction- Casual approach cannot be subscribed on our part- Matter is set aside for indepth verification . [ S.133(6)]

PCIT v. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. ( 2019) 418 ITR 449/311 CTR 363/ 183 DTR 60/( 2020) 268 Taxman 1 (SC),www.itatonline.org Editorial: Review petition , application for seeking open court oral hearing is rejected as dismissed . NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd v PCIT CA no .2463 /2019 dt 4-02 2020 / (2020) 186 DTR 249/ 313 CTR 1/ 273 Taxman 14 (SC)

S.68: Cash credits – Appeal -Supreme Court- Pricipal Officer- Bogus share capital-Ex-parte order – Service of notice- Authorised representative – Recall of ex-parte order-A power of attorney holder is an agent and Principal Officer u/s 2(35)-If a Chartered Accountant is granted a Power of attorney holder service upon him of a notice is valid- If a notice is duly served upon the litigant through its authorized representative, and it was provided sufficient opportunity to appear before the Court and contest the matter but the litigant choses to let the matter proceed ex parte, the order cannot be recalled. [S. 2(35) 261, 262 , 282, 288, Art . 136 ]