Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


PCIT v. Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd ( 2020) 185 DTR 390 /113 taxmann.com 303 ( Bom) (HC) Editorial : Notice issued in SLP filed by revenue , PCIT v. Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd ( 2021 ) 281 Taxman 365 ( SC)

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income – Recording of satisfaction – AO needs to record his non-satisfaction having regard to the sou motu disallowances claimed by the assessee in the context of its accounts. It is only thereafter, the occasion to apply rule 8D of the Rules for apportionment of expenses can arise- AO discussing and not accepting is not sufficient -Order of Tribunal is affirmed . [S.14A(2) , R.8D ]

Kuthannur Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. ITO (2020) 420 ITR 358 / 180 DTR 313/ 312 CTR 465/ 271 Taxman 118 (Ker)(HC) Peringottukurussi Service Co -Operative Bank Ltd v .ITO ( 2020) 420 ITR 358 / 180 DTR 313/ 312 CTR 465/ 271 Taxman 118 (Ker)(HC) Vadakkenchery Service Co -operative Bank Ltd v .ITO ( 2020) 420 ITR 358 / 180 DTR 313/ 312 CTR 465 / 271 Taxman 118(Ker)(HC)

S. 80P : Co-operative societies -CBDT – Binding precedent – Clarificatory circulars for guidance of Government Officers is not binding on Tribunal- Circulars issued by a Government Department cannot have any primacy over the decision of the jurisdictional High Court-Not entitle to deduction . [ S.80P(2) ,119 ]

Ivan Singh v. ACIT (2020) 422 ITR 128/ 195 DTR 227/ 272 Taxman 36/ ( 2021 )) 322 CTR 851 (Bom)(HC) www.itatonline.org

S. 143(3) : Assessment –Ad-hoc addition- Labour charges – On facts the High Court affirmed the order of the Tribunal. [ S.260A ]

Ivan Singh v. ACIT (2020) 422 ITR 128 / 195 DTR 227/ 272 Taxman 36/ ( 2021) 322 CTR 851 (Bom)(HC)(Goa Bench), www.itatonline.org

S. 68 : Cash credits -The expression “any previous year” does not mean all previous years but the previous year in relation to the assessment year concerned- If the cash credits are credited in the FY 2006-07, it cannot be brought to tax in a later AY.2009-10[ S.3 ]

Shri. Dhar Sabha Vaishno Devi v. CIT(E) (TM ) Amristar) (Trib),www.itatonline.org

S. 12A : Registration –Trust or institution- Object clause-Registration cannot be refused on the ground that the Trust Deed does not contain “dissolution clause” and not registering with the Registrar of Societies . [ S.2(15) ,11, 12AA ]

Tata Communications Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2019) 311 CTR 407 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 245 : Refunds- Set off of refunds against tax remaining payable – Refund cannot be adjusted without prior notice is issued – Order adjustment of refund is quashed .[ Art. 226 ]

Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2019) 311 CTR 385 / 267 Taxman 603 /( 2020) 421 ITR 253 (Bom.)(HC). Editorial : SLP of revenue was dismissed on the ground of delay , Dy.CIT v. Vodafone Idea Ltd ( 2021 )) 283 Taxman 272/ 283 Taxman 8 (SC)

S.241A: Withholding of refund in certain cases – Declaring the loss cannot be the ground to doubt the contents of the return or the loss suffered by the assessee – Directed to refund the amount with the interest with in the period of three weeks from the receipt of the order . [ S.143(ID), 197, Art .226 ]

Vodafone Idea Ltd v. Dy.CIT ( 2019) 182 DTR 177/ 311 CTR 210 ( Bom) (HC)

S. 281B : Provisional attachment – Reasoned order- When earlier assessment years Tribunal has suspended the recoveries arising out of demands made on similar issues – Order of provisional attachment is set aside . [ S.245, Art . 226 ]

Sharp Tools v. PCIT (2019) 311 CTR 505 /183 DTR 289/( 2020) 421 ITR 90 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 264 :Commissioner – Revision of other orders – Revised return filed beyond limitation period rectifying the mistake – Rejection of application is held to be not valid – Matter is remitted back to the CIT for considering the claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order-No tax shall be collected except by authority of law . [ S. 139(1), 139(5) , 154 ,Art .226, Art .265 ]

PCIT v. ITSC. (2019) 311 CTR 284 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 245D : Settlement Commission – Failure to disclose a full and true disclosure – Order passed by consent – Settlement recorded by the Commission on consent of the parties- Dept cannot challenge the order which is passed by consent . [ S.245D(4) Art. 226 ]