Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


CIT v. Manoj Kumar Singh. (2018) 402 ITR 238/ 303 CTR 294/ 167 DTR 179 (All) (HC)

Interpretation of taxing statutes — Beneficial Provision — Retrospective application.

CIT v. Swapna Enterprise (2018) 401 ITR 488 / 253 Taxman 531 /166 DTR 51/ 302 CTR 504 (Guj) (HC)

Interpretation of taxing statutes — Similarity in language used in provisions.

CIT v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. (2018) 401 ITR 445 (SC) (HC)

Interpretation of taxing statutes — Presumption of prospectivity of statute- Machinery provisions .

Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. v. CIT( 2018) 404 ITR 564/166 DTR 379 (Bom)(HC) , www.itatonline.org

Interpretation – Binding precedent -. Interpretations given by High Courts and Tribunals cannot be ignored by the Assessing Officers

Indian Express Newspapers(Bom) (P) Ltd. v. IAC ( 2018) 164 DTR 233/ 302 CTR 33 (Bom)(HC) , www.itatonline.org

Wealth –tax Act, 1957 –Finance Act 1983
S. 40(3) :Levy of wealth tax on land and building which is not used for the purpose of business was held to be valid – Parliament has legislative competence to tax land and buildings which are in List-II of the 7th Schedule and whether the classification of “companies in which the public are not substantially interested” is neither arbitrary nor violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India . [ Art 14 ]

DIT Wealth-Tax v. Hersh W. Chadha (2018) 401 ITR 502/165 DTR 52/ 302 CTR 245 (Delhi) (HC)

Wealth-tax Act, 1957
S. 7:Net Wealth — Vehicle funded by and maintained on behalf of Principal foreign company was held to be not included in net Wealth of Assessee -Principle of consistency was followed .[S.2(m) ]

DIT Wealth-Tax v. Hersh W. Chadha (2018) 401 ITR 502/165 DTR 52/ 302 CTR 245 (Delhi) (HC)

Wealth-tax Act, 1957

S. 2(ea): Valuation of asset – Immoveable property – Lessee sub-leasing property for higher rent and receiving deposit- Value Of Property declared by assessee was correct fair market value as on the relevant valuation date — Amount paid by lessee was not assessable as income of assesse. [ S. 5, 7 , Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 ]

Lalit Suri Through Legal Representative Jyotsna Suri v. CWT (2018) 402 ITR 104 /166 DTR 84/ 305 CTR 942 (Delhi) (HC) / Jyotsna Suri v. CWT (2018) 402 ITR 104/166 DTR 84 / 305 CTR 942 (Delhi) (HC)

Wealth-tax Act, 1957
S.2(ea):Assets- Remand to Assessing Officer by Tribunal on question of valuation, issue stating that the lands not includible in net wealth cannot be raised , matter remanded . [ S.24(5) ]

CIT v. Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. (2018) 402 ITR 25 (Ker) (HC)

Interest-Tax Act, 1974

S. 2(5B)( vi): Financial Company — Finance Charges such as interest received from hire purchase transactions and other Interest was held to chargeable to tax .[ S.8(2) ]

Siddharth Rastogi v. CBDT (2018) 402 ITR 17/ 301 CTR 545 / 163 DTR 449 (Delhi) (HC) Dal Chandra Rastogi v. CBDT (2018) 402 ITR 17/ 301 CTR 545 / 163 DTR 449 (Delhi) (HC) Meena Rastogi v CBDT ( 2018) 404 ITR 97/301 CTR 548 / 163 DTR 452( Delhi) (HC) Editoraial: Supreme Court permitted the Asseseee to dposit tax under Income Dclartion Schme belatedly subject to interest @ 12 % .

Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 (IDS)

S. 183: Payment of tax – Failure to pay third instalment – Rejection of application was held to be justified- Old age and ill health or forgetfulness to make payment and the assesse was 70 years age cannot be the ground to extension of time for payment of third instalment . [ S. 119(2) ]