Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


CWT v. Harakchand Uttamchand Khinvasara (HUF) (2018) 97 taxmann.com 518/ 258 Taxman 151 (Bom.) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed; CWT v. Harakchand Uttamchand Khinvasara (HUF) (2018) 258 Taxman 150 (SC)

S.17: Reassessment –Protective basis –Assets-Immovable property- Assessment could not be reopened on basis of certain stand of assessee taken before Assessing Officer in income-tax proceedings [S. 2(ea), 16(3)]

CIT v. U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. (2018) 258 Taxman 64( All) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed ;CIT v. U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. (2018) 258 Taxman 63 (SC)

S. 271(1)(c) :Penalty – Concealment –Disallowance of expenditure-merely because said claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to revenue, that by itself would not attract penalty.

Nitin Babubhai Rohit v. Ashok Bhavanbhai Patel (2018) 258 Taxman 252/ 172 DTR 388/ 305 CTR 979 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 264 :Commissioner – Revision of other orders -Cash credits –In the revision order the Commissioner did not make any addition to assessee’s income and held that addition of a sum of Rs. 20 crores being a serious matter, same should be examined again –Order of Commissioner is set aside by observing that it was not quantum of additions but justification thereof which would be germane for deciding to exercise revisional powers –Remanded the matter for fresh disposal. [ S.68 ]

CIT v. Mihir Doshi (2018) 258 Taxman 93 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Residence in India –Amendment to S.6(6)(a) has been brought into effect from 1-4-2004; which is not applicable for the Asst year 2003-04- Judgement of Supreme Court is binding on Assessing officer -Revision is held to be bad in law .[S.6(6)(a) ]

Agnity Technologies ( P) Ltd v CIT( 2018) 97 taxmann.com 515/ 258 Taxman 129 ( Delhi) (HC) Editorial: SLP of assessee is dismissed ;Spinacom India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 258 Taxman 128 (SC)

S. 260A : Appeal – High Court –No satisfactory reason has been provided for delay of 439 days in filing an appeal – Pendency of rectification application before Tribunal cannot be the reason for codonation of delay .[ S.254(2)]

PCIT v. Nawany Construction Co. (P.) Ltd. (2018) 258 Taxman 365 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 260A : Appeal – High Court –Monetary limits- CBDT Circulars continue to bind revenue and if they contain any conditions, whether such conditions are attracted or not would have to be proved and established by revenue; mere raising objection in terms of Circular would not be enough. [S.119]

L & T Finance Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 258 Taxman 282 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 260A : Appeal – High Court – Question of matching concept which was never argued before the Tribunal nor raised before the High Court, cannot be argued first time before the High Court. [S.28(i)]

Nitin Babubhai Rohit v. Ashok Bhavanbhai Patel (2018) 258 Taxman 252/ 172 DTR 388/ 305 CTR 979 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 251 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) –Powers- Doctrine of merger- Powers –After filing an appeal the assessee filed revision application- Despite the revisional order being passed the Commissioner (Appeals) decided the same issue- Once revision petition was filed and decided, it was not open to Commissioner (Appeals) to decide appeal on same issue. [S. 264 ]

CIT v. Income-tax Settlement Commission (2018) 258 Taxman 36 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 245D : Settlement Commission –Revenue cannot compel the Settlement Commission to reopen the earlier years by passing rectification order- Petition is dismissed. [S. 154,245C]

Dr. Thirupathy Reddy (HUF) v. ACIT (2018) 258 Taxman 177/(2019) 410 ITR 186 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 237 : Refunds –Annulment of assessment -Only tax paid by assessee in excess of what was declared by it on its own in return of income would be entitled to be refunded [ S.4(1), 140A(3), 158BD, 240(b), 244]