Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


Harvinder Singh v. ITO (2019) 200 TTJ 137 / 179 DTR 225 (TM)(Amritsar)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Recording the satisfaction as regards concealment of particulars of income–Imposition of penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income–Levy of penalty is held to be not valid. [S. 274]

Administrator of Estate of Lt. Edulji Framroze Dinshaw v. CIT (2019) 177 ITD 341 / 177 DTR 48 / 199 TTJ 885 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –Interests of fixed deposits -If an amount is not chargeable to tax just because the payer has deducted the tax at source, the said amount cannot be brought to tax [S. 4].

Paras Chinubhai Jani v. PCIT (2019) 177 ITD 591 (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue–Purchase of a land prior to date of transfer of agricultural land– Revision is held to be justified. [S. 45, 54B]

Harvinder Singh v. ITO (2019) 200 TTJ 137 / 179 DTR 225 (TM) (Amritsar)(Trib.)

S. 255 : Appellate Tribunal–Third member–Powers- Third member has to pass an order agreeing with the one of the views. [S. 254(1), 255(4)]

Radhika Roy v. DCIT (2019) 200 TTJ 665 / 73 ITR 239 / 180 DTR 329 (Delhi)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org Dr. Prannoy Roy v. DCIT (2019) 200 TTJ 665 / 73 ITR 239 (Delhi)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal–Duties-Additional evidence– Supporting the order of AO certain agreements which were produced by the assessee before the AO was produced by the revenue–Admission of additional evidence is held to be justified. [ITAT R. 29]

Radhika Roy v. DCIT (2019) 200 TTJ 665 / 73 ITR 239 / 180 DTR 329 (Delhi)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org Dr. Prannoy Roy v. DCIT (2019) 200 TTJ 665 / 73 ITR 239 (Delhi)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org

S. 251 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)–Powers -New source of income–Purchase of shares at Rs.4 per share when the market price was Rs.140 per share–AO made addition of Rs. 136 per share u/s 69/69B of the Act–CIT (A) confirmed the addition u/s. 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act–CIT(A) has not discovered a new source of income-Order of CIT(A) is affirmed. [S. 56(2)(vii)(c), 69, 69B, 246A]

Annapoorneshwari Investment v. DCIT 177 ITD 717 (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 249 : Appeal-Commissioner(Appeals)–Payment of admitted tax- Subsequently required amount of tax is paid- Appeal shall be admitted on making payment of tax and taken up for hearing on merits. [S. 246A, 249(4)(a)]

Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. v. ITO (2019) 177 ITD 434 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 201 : Deduction at source-Failure to deduct or pay–Order passed after six years from expiry of financial year 2005-06 relevant to impugned assessment year-Held to be barred by limitation. [S.195(2), 201(1), 201(IA)]

ITO (TDS) v. Mahatma Gandhi University. (2019) 177 ITD 508/ 73 ITR 44 /202 TTJ 626 ( 2020) 188 DTR 293 (Cochin)(Trib.)

S. 201 : Deduction at source-Failure to deduct or pay–Bona fide estimate–Cannot be held to be assessee–in default-Payments made employees towards death cum retirement gratuity, pension or leave salary would not be liable for TDS to extent permitted under provisions. [S. 10(10), 10(10AA)]

Radhika Roy v. DCIT (2019) 200 TTJ 665 / 73 ITR 239/ 180 DTR 329 (Delhi)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org Dr. Prannoy Roy v. DCIT (2019) 200 TTJ 665/73 ITR 239 (Delhi) (Trib.), www.itatonline.org

S. 147 : Reassessment-Information from the Dy. DIT(Inv)-Live link between the tangible material and formation of belief and reasons recorded-Mismatch of exempt long term capital gains- Reassessment is held to be valid.[S. 10(38), 45, 148]