Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


Prashanti Medical Service & Research Foundation v. UOI ( 2019) 416 ITR 485/ 180 DTR 209/ 309 CTR 457 / 265 Taxman 504 (SC), www.itatonline.org

Interpretation of taxing statutes – Equity or hardship not factor to be considered in deciding validity of provision- Promissory estoppel- No estoppel against legislature . [ S.35AC, Art .142 ]

CIT v. Tata Consultancy Services (2019) 177 DTR 317 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 10A : Free trade zone – Computer software – Expenses which are to be excluded from the export turnover would also have to be excluded for the purpose of computing total turnover- Deduction rightly claimed u/s 10A instead of S.80HHE of the Act . [ S.80HHE ]

CIT of CE & Cust. v. Twenty first century wire Rods Ltd. (2019) (28) G. S. T. L 10 (Bom.)(HC)

Natural Justice-Right of cross examination is not required to be granted when the statement is not used against the assessee and matter is decided on other evidence-Non furnishing of the documents on which the reliance is being made, principle of natural justice is violated-Matter remanded.

CIT of CX. CUS & S. T. v. Bakelite Hylam Ltd. (2019) (27) G.S.T.L. 641 (SC)

Interpretation -Precedent -Recalled order cannot be relied upon as precedent.

Rajendra Shah S/o. Ambalal Shah v. State of Maharashtra (Bom.)(HC), www.itatonline.org

S. 295(4) : Directors-Professionals-Liability of professionals acting as Non-executive directors-cannot be prosecuted for offenses committed by the company.

UOI v. Gautam Khaitan (2019) 308 CTR 681 / 178 DTR 105 (SC)

S. 85 : Prosecution-Operation of impugned restraining order of High Court is stayed-Petitioners are free to prosecute respondent and proceed further in accordance with law, subject to the final decision of this matter. [S. 86]

Sarovar Hotels (P) Ltd v. Dy.CWT (2019) 307 CTR 791 / 176 DTR 209 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 2(ea)(v) of : Urban Land-Expression “the construction of building not permissible under any law in force” cannot be equated with regulatory requirement of any statutory provision which mandates obtaining of permission from the Competent Authority-Restriction and prohibition are two different concepts- Tribunal was right in holding that lands were includible in net wealth as ‘urban land’.

CIT v. Cordial Co. (2019) 176 DTR 185 / 308 CTR 159 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 292C : Presumption as to assets, books of account–Does not hold good in case the addition is made in the hands of a person other than the person searched- Un explained expenditure. [S. 69C, 153A, 153C]

Dr. Nitin Laxmikant Lad. v. ACIT (2019) 307 CTR 213 / 174 DTR 341 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment-Explanation 5A-Disclosure of additional income in the statements and in return filed under S. 153A-Notwithstanding that the income declared in the return fled for the period under consideration is accepted – Liable to penalty. [S.153A]

Nordic Maritime Pte Ltd. v. CIT (2019) 308 CTR 855 / 178 DTR 110 (Uttarakhand)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue– CIT has to record his prima facie opinion in the show-cause notice, that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.