Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


DIT(E) v. Gemological Institute of India (2019) 105 taxmann.com 179 / 263 Taxman 349 (Bom.)(HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed on the ground of low tax effect. DIT(E) v. Gemological Institute of India (2019) 263 Taxman 348 (SC)

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes –Registration granted – AO cannot revisit objects again while examining compliance with S.11 of the Act. [S. 2(15), 12A]

CIT(E) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (2019) 105 taxmann.com 309 / 263 Taxman 456 (Guj.) (HC) Editorial : SLP is granted to the revenue, CIT (E) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (2019) 263 Taxman 455 (SC)

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes-Accumulation of income – Entitle to exemption. [S. 2(15)]

Nadigar Sangam Charitable Trust v. ADIT (2019) 263 Taxman 648/ 179 DTR 297/ 310 CTR 483 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes – Artists and actors -Advance paid to purchase leasehold right in auditorium was to be considered as application of income- Entitle to exemption.[ S.2(15) 11(1)(a), 11(5)]

PCIT v. Green Fire Exports (2019)106 taxmann.com 32 / 263 Taxman 676 (Raj.)(HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed, PCIT v. Green Fire Exports (2019) 263 Taxman 675 (SC)

S. 10AA : Special economic zones-Reconstruction-sole proprietorship was not been shifted to firm -Only Capital received from sole proprietorship-Not a reconstruction – Entitle to exemption. [S.10AA)4)(iii)]

Jaipur National University v. Jt. CIT (2019) 175 DTR 337/198 TTJ 457 (Jaipur) (Trib.)

S. 275 : Penalty-Bar of limitation–Initiation of penalty starts from issue of show cause notice and not from date of order u/s 201(1)- Penalty order was within time and not barred by limitation. [S. 201(1), 201(IA), 271C]

Hareshkumar Becharbhai Patel v. Jt. CIT (2019) 69 ITR 73 (SN) (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 271D : Penalty-Accepts any loan or deposit–Sum initially advanced as loan by father to son, but later treated as gift transaction cannot be subject to S. 269SS-levy of penalty is not justified .[S. 269S]

Jaipur National University v. Jt. CIT (2019) 175 DTR 337 (Japur.) (Trib.)

S. 271C : Penalty-Failure to deduct at source-It is necessary to establish that there was contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee- Penalty levied was deleted. [S. 273B]

Gaurav Joshi v. ITO(2019) 174 DTR 353 / 197 TTJ 946 (Asr.) (Trib.)

S. 147 : Reassessment–After the expiry of four years–The assessment framed by AO who had not issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act is void-ab-initio –Notice was issued by the AO who had no jurisdiction- Reassessment is held to be bad in law . [S. 2(7A), 148]

Holy Faith International Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2019) 69 ITR 687 (Asr.)(Trib.)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years- Re-opening Reopening merely on the basis of information received from investigation wing without application of mind is not valid. [S. 148]

Fortune Vincom Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2019) 69 ITR 48 (SN) (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 143(3) : Assessment–Order giving effect to revision order– Assessing Officer is bound to follow the directions provided in the order u/s. 263 by the CIT. [S. 263]