Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


Veisa Technologies. v. ACIT (2019) 263 Taxman 600// (2020)422 ITR 536 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery–Stay–Appeal pending before CIT(A)-Assessee has given liberty to approach the AO to stay the demand. [S. 220(3), 220(6), 246A]

CIT v. Times Global Broadcasting Co. Ltd. (2019)105 taxman .com 313 / 263 Taxman 466 (Bom.)(HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed, CIT v. Times Global Broadcasting Co. Ltd. (2019) 263 Taxman 465 (SC)

S. 194C : Deduction at source–Contractors-Placement fees/carriage fees – work contract and not fees for technical service. [S. 194J]

Gurmeet Singh Vilkhu v. PCIT (2019) 263 Taxman 636/ 307 CTR 799/ 176 DTR 105 (MP)(HC)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Relief for income-tax-Arrears or advance of salary–Failure to claim in return–Rectification order passed by the AO is held to be without jurisdiction. [S.89(1)]

My Car (Pune) (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2019) 263 Taxman 626/ 179 DTR 236 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-Sanction order indicated non-application of mind to reasons recorded for reopening, therefore, reopening notice was bad in law and quashed. [S.147, 148]

Kanchan Agarwal (Mrs.) v. ITO (2019) 263 Taxman 682 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment–With in four years- On the day of furnishing the recorded reasons–Reassessment order is passed -Order passed in hasty manner–Order is seta side. [S. 148]

Max Ventures Investments Holdings (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2019) 415 ITR 395 / 263 Taxman 401/ ( 2019) 179 CTR 228/ 309 CTR 372 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Cash credits-Share application money-Huge premium-Genuineness of transaction or creditworthiness of individual providing money were apparently not established–Issue of reassessment notice is held to be justified.[S. 68, 148]

Pandesara Infrastructure Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2019) 105 taxmann.com 181 / 263 Taxman 367 (Guj.)(HC) Editorial : SLP of revenue is dismissed, Dy. CIT v. Pandesara Infrastructure Ltd. (2019) 263 Taxman 366 (SC)

S. 147 : Reassessment–After the expiry of four years-Book profit-Subsidy received by assessee from Government was directly credited to capital reserve account-Sufficient disclosure of facts– Reassessment is held to be bad in law.[S. 115JB, 148]

South Yarra Holdings v. ITO (2019) 263 Taxman 594 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years- Penny stock – Shares-No failure to disclose all material facts- Merely on basis of information received from Investigation Wing without conducting any independent enquiries. [S. 69A, 148]

CMI FPE Ltd. v. UOI (2019) 263 Taxman 433 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years- Prior period expenses – Disclosed all material facts necessary for assessment-Initiation of reassessment proceedings merely on basis of change of opinion is not justified.[S. 37(1), 148]

Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. PCIT (2019) 105 taxmann.com 272 / 263 Taxman 469(Orissa )(HC) Editorial : SLP of the assessee is dismissed and passed the order stating that no coercive steps will be taken for a period of four weeks from the date of the order in order to avail of the alternative remedy provided. Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Pr. CIT (2019) 263 Taxman 468 (SC)

S. 143(3) : Assessment–Alternative remedy-Writ against the assessment order is not valid since the assessee had an alternative remedy before Appellate Authority. [S. 246A, Art. 226]