Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


PCIT v. Well Wisher Construction (P.) Ltd. (2019)106 taxmann.com 259 / 264 Taxman 86 (Bom.)(HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed, PCIT v. Well Wisher Construction (P.) Ltd. (2019) 264 Taxman 85 (SC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue– Capital asset-Surrender of right, title and interest in plot allotted by MIDC in favour of third party-Not assessable as business income.[S.,2(14), 28(i), 45]

Mckinsey Knowledge Centre India (P.) Ltd. v CIT (2019) 106 taxmann.com 248 / 264 Taxman 24 (Mag.) (Delhi)(HC)

S. 260A : Appeal-Review-Transfer pricing–Arm’s length price–Following the earlier year order review petition is allowed-The appeal is restored to original file of this Court and shall be heard on its merits. [S. 92C]

PCIT v. Envision Investment & Finance (P.) Ltd. (2019) 264 Taxman 242 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court–Sale of shares-Income earned from sale of shares held for more than one year–Held as long-term capital gain- Applicability Explanation to S. 73 cannot be raised for first time in proceedings pending before High Court. [S. 45, 73]

Shobha Lakshman (Smt.) v. CIT (2019) 264 Taxman 198/ 311 CTR 496 / 183 DTR 213(Karn.)(HC)/ Editorial: Shobha Lakshman (Smt) v. CIT (Appeals) (2023) 295 Taxman 237 (SC), matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A)).

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal- Powers-Dismissal of appeal-Non appearance -Failure to appear on the appointed date, failure to make arrangement to represent her before Tribunal by an authorised representative and also failed to sought for another date of hearing- Dismissal of appeal by the Tribunal is held to be justified.

Amrapali Fincap Ltd. v. ITSC (2016) 73 taxmann.com 97 (Guj.) (HC) Editorial: SLP is granted to the assessee, Amrapali Fincap Ltd. v. ITSC (2019) 264 Taxman 84 (SC)

S. 245D : Settlement Commission-Application–Cross examination- Relying upon statements of witness without giving an opportunity of cross examination the application of the assessee was rejected by the Settlement Commission-High Court rejected the writ petition. [S. 245C]

Samdariya Builders (P.) Ltd. v. ITSC (2019) 264 Taxman 176 / 311 CTR 500/ 183 DTR 209 //(2020)423 ITR 203 (MP)(HC)

S. 245D : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases–Settlement Commission either reject the application or it could have directed Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to enquire and submit report so as to enable to Commission to take a decision- Settlement Commission could not relegate matter to Assessing Officer to dispose of assessee’s case on merits. [S. 245(2C), 245D(1), 245D(4)]

Mansukhlal Pitalia v. PCIT (2019) 264 Taxman 217/ 181 DTR 248/ 310 CTR 474 (MP)(HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default- Wilful evasion of payment of tax- waiver of interest is rejected [ S. 158BC, 220(2A)]

PCIT v. Supriya Suhas Joshi (Smt.) (2019) 106 taxmann.com 57/ 264 Taxman 25 (Mag.)/ 182 DTR 109 / (2020) 313 CTR 482(Bom.) (HC)

S. 195 : Deduction at source-Non-resident-Deputation-Contract between assessee manpower provider and Kuwait based company-Employee was deputed in Kuwaiti company who was under employment of assessee-assessee was not required to deduct tax at source.[ S.9(1) (vii), 40(a) (ia) ]

CIT (IT) v. Indusind Bank Ltd. (2019) 415 ITR 115 / 264 Taxman 190/179 DTR 18/ 311 CTR 858 (Bom.) (HC)

S. 195 : Deduction at source-Non-resident-Royalties and fee for technical services-Banking services-Foreign bank-Rendering financial services in order to raise capital abroad through issuance of Global Depository Receipts (‘GDRs’)- Not liable to tax in India as fee for technical services- Not liable to deduct tax at source–Article 12 of OECD Model Convention.[S. 9(1) (i),9(1)(vii)]

Kramski Stamping & Molding India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2019) 106 taxmann.com 247/ 264 Taxman 26 (Mag.)/(2020) 180 DTR 225/ 313 CTR 345 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 194C : Deduction at source–Contractors-Composite sales invoice–Matter remanded. [S. 40(a)(ia), 194C(iv)]