Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. CIT (2019) 266 Taxman 390 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 234C : Interest-Deferment of advance tax–Demerger of the unit–Not justified in levying the interest for period before acquisition of cement business by assessee-Interest is directed to be waived. [S. 119(2), Art. 226]

Aarti Sponce & Power Ltd. v. ACIT (2019) 418 ITR 257 (Chhatisgarh)(HC)

S. 225 : Collection and recovery-Stay of proceedings–Disputed demand-Deposit of 20 percent tax of demand is not a condition precedent-Directed to pass reasoned order. [S. 226, Art. 226]

Sapana Charudatt Ranadive v. ITO (2019) 418 ITR 193 / 181 DTR 127 / 310 CTR 432 / 266 Taxman 4 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 222 : Collection and recovery-Certificate to Tax Recovery Officer-Attachment and sale of immovable property-Limitation-Attachment of immovable property in 1997-Proclamation of sale in February, 2019-Barred by limitation. [Sch. II R. 68B. Art. 226]

Hinal Estates (P.) Ltd. v. UOI (2019) 266 Taxman 411 / 184 DTR 297/(2020) 314 CTR 549(Bom.)(HC)

S. 222 : Collection and recovery-Certificate to Tax Recovery Officer-Amalgamation-Tax Recovery Officer could not seek recovery of taxes of reassessment from assessee-company inasmuch as assessee neither had been served with notice of reopening of assessment, nor had any occasion to participate in such reassessment proceedings. [S. 147, 148, Art. 226]

Vodafone India Services P. Ltd. v. UOI (2019) 418 ITR 376 / 310 CTR 298 / 179 DTR 129 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default–Stay –Penalty–Pendency of review petition-Discretion must be exercised judiciously–Rejection of application for stay of recovery of penalty is held to be without application of mind–No waiting for three days in terms of order passed-Held to be not valid. [S. 220(6), 245, 271(1)(c), Art. 226]

Hi Care Gloves (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 267 Taxman 42 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default– Pendency of appeal before CIT(A) and condonation of delay– Offered to pay 10% of tax demand–Court directed the CIT(A) to dispose the application for condonation od delay–Not to recover further tax amount until disposal of applications for condonation of delay. [S. 246A, Art. 226]

CIT v. Nimbus Communications Ltd. (2019) 266 Taxman 376 (Bom.)(HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed; CIT v. Nimbus Communications Ltd. (2019) 266 Taxman 375 (SC)/416 ITR 128 (St.)(SC)

S. 194H : Deduction at source–Commission or brokerage– Guarantee commission paid to bank is not covered under commission or brokerage–Not liable to deduct tax at source. [S. 201(1), 201(IA)]

TLG India Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (TDS) (2019) 418 ITR 324/ 267 Taxman 319/ 184 DTR 329 ( 2020) 312 CTR 179 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 194C : Deduction at source–Contractors advertisement services-Principle of natural justice must be followed-Assessing Officer is not justified in deciding that tax should be deducted under Section 194J without giving an opportunity of hearing. [S. 194J, 197,201(1), 201(IA), Art. 226]

B. Muralidhar. v. DCIT (2019) 267 Taxman 35 /(2020) 424 ITR 397 / 187 DTR 162 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 179 : Private company-Liability of directors–Alternative remedy is available by way of revision-Writ petition is dismissed. [S.264, Art.226]

S. Ajit Kumar. v. ACIT (2019)419 ITR 260/ 266 Taxman 380/ 184 DTR 449 /(2020) 314 CTR 687(Mad.)(HC)

S. 158BFA : Block assessment–Penalty–Limitation-Pursuant to supreme Court’s order deciding quantum of appeal in favour of revenue–Dormant penalty proceedings were reinitiated–Order is not barred by limitation–Order of Tribunal was merged with the order of the Supreme Court. [S. 158BFA(3)(c), 253, 271(1)(c), 275]