Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


CIT (TDS) v. Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. (2018) 408 ITR 140 (T&AP) (HC)

S. 254(2A): Appellate Tribunal –Stay- Direction to Tribunal to decide appeals within specified time is and vacation of stay is not mandatory-third proviso has to be understood with two clear prescriptions on caveat. They are that the third proviso has to be understood primarily as directory and not mandatory-Stay will not stand automatically vacated under third proviso to sub -section 2(A) of section 254 , unless the Tribunal records a finding that the assessee was responsible for the procrastination of hearing of the appeal- Interim stay granted to continue . [ S.254(1) ]

Dr. Prathap Chandra Reddy.v. ITSC (2018) 408 ITR 222 (Mad) (HC)

S. 245D : Settlement Commission – Application -Rejection of application only on technical ground stating that the applicant has not mentioned the subsequent receipt of refund is held to be not justified – The order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Settlement Commission for fresh consideration. [ S. 245C, Art. 226 ]

CIT v. Vallabh Pesticides Ltd. And Another. (2018) 408 ITR 54 /( 2019) 173 DTR 356/ 307 CTR 646 (Guj) (HC) Editorial: SLP is granted to the assessee . Vallabh Pesticides Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 27 (St) (SC)

S. 245D : Settlement Commission – Pendency of assessment -Once the assessment is made by the Assessing Officer by passing the order of assessment, the case can no longer be stated to be pending. An application for settlement would be maintainable only if filed before that date. The date of dispatch or service of the order on the assessee would not be material for such purpose Matter -Precedent -Settlement Commission must follow decision of jurisdictional High Court- Case remanded to Settlement Commission- .[ S.245C ]

Rajesh Vachhani v. CIT (2018) 408 ITR 94 (Guj) (HC)

S. 244A : Refunds – Interest on refunds – Search and seizure — Tax dues appropriated from seized cash — Balance to be returned with interest.[ S. 132 ]

CIT v. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority. (2018) 408 ITR 111 /258 Taxman 164/ 304 CTR 776/ 170 DTR 97 (Bom) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed CIT (TDS) v. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority ( 2019) 263 taxman 365 ( SC)

S. 194L : Deduction at source – Compensation on acquisition of capital asset -Compulsory acquisition of land for projects and paying sums to illegal squatters for their rehabilitation is not a case of compulsory acquisition from owners of land- Not liable to deduct tax at source .[ S.194LA, 201, 201A ]

CIT v. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority. (2018) 408 ITR 111 / 258 Taxman 164/ 304 CTR 776/ 170 DTR 97(Bom) (HC)Editorial: SLP of revenue is dsmssed due to low tax effect , CIT v. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority ( 2019) 262 Taxman 451 (SC)

S. 194C : Deduction at source – Contractors -Payment towards annual maintenance contracts for lifts and air conditioners is not technical services -Deduction of tax as contractor is justified payment cannot be treated as fees for technical services . [ S.194J , 260A ]

CIT v. Soudha Gafoor (Smt) ( 2017) 298 CTR 381/(2018) 408 ITR 246 (Ker) (HC)

S. 158BD : Block assessment – Undisclosed income of any other person -Recording of satisfaction is not required where AO is the same .[ S.132 ]

Meteor Satellite Pvt. Ltd v. ITO (2018) 408 ITR 99 (Guj) (HC)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake – As long as the order of the Tribunal stood, the assessment order was required to be implemented-After giving effect to the order of the Tribunal -Notice issued for rectification of mistake on the ground of deduction was wrongly allowed is held to be bad in law .[ S. 54EC,115JB, 254(1) ]

CIT v. Dharampal Premchand Ltd. (2018) 408 ITR 170 (Delhi) (HC) Editorial: SLP is granted to the revenue , CIT v. Dharampal Premchand Ltd ( 2018) 405 ITR 27 (St)

S. 153A : Assessment – Search and seizure-No incriminating material was found- Rejection of claim u/s 80IB, 80IC is held to be not justified [ S.80IB, 80IC, 132 ]

Mumtaz Haji Mohmad Memon. v. ITO (2018) 408 ITR 268 (Guj) (HC) www.itatonline.org

S.147: Reassessment- Reason recorded was return was not filed -Affidavit in reply stated that possibility of application of S.50C- Incorrect reason- Notice is held to be bad in law .[ S. 50C, 139,148 ]