Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


Standard Batteries Ltd. v. CIT ( 2018) 166 DTR 289 / 255 Taxman 380/ 304 CTR 1(Bom)(HC), www.itatonline.org

S. 80HHC : Export business – Total turn over – Excise duty-Excise duty paid by assessee was to be excluded from the total turnover for purpose of computation of deduction .

CIT v. HCL Technologies Ltd (2018) 404 ITR 719/ 165 DTR 305/302 CTR 191 / 255 Taxman 313 (SC), www.itatonline.org

Interpretation of taxing statues- Intention of legislature must prevail [ S. 10A,80HHC, 80HHE ]

CIT v. Calcutta Export Company (2018) 404 ITR 654/ 165 DTR 321/302 CTR 201/ 255 Taxman 293 (SC), www.itatonline.org

Interpretation of taxing statues- Proviso- Amendment to remedy unintended consequences and make provision workable is to be treated as retrospective .[ S.40(a)(ia) ,139(1)]

Srinidhi Karti Chidambaram. v. CIT (2018) 404 ITR 578/ 255 Taxman 495/166 DTR 17/302 CTR 353 (Mad) (HC)404 ITR 578

Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015,
S.10(1): Offences and Prosecution — Undisclosed Foreign Income – Court cannot extend or reduce time contrary to statutory provisions – Summons issued only after notices were issued — Issue of parallel proceedings is question of fact — A writ of prohibition could not be issued to prevent the authorities from initiating prosecution, as that would render the provisions of section 48 inoperative.[ S.10(3) 11(1) 48 , Art .226 ]

DIT (IT) v. Nomura India Investment Fund Mother Fund. (2018) 404 ITR 636 (Bom) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed DIT (IT) v. Nomura India Investment Fund Mother Fund( 2018) 401 ITR 172 (St)(SC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Capital gains —Claiming exemption under S.10(38) with a note that reserved its right to carry forward the loss – Deletion of penalty is held to be justified [ S.10(38), 45 ]

S. P. Mani and Mohan Dairy. v. ACIT (2018) 404 ITR 633/ 255 Taxman 172 (Mad) (HC)

S. 226 : Collection and recovery – Modes of recovery -Attachment of bank account – Interim in junction was granted subject to payment of 20 percent of disputed tax on account of claim of additional depreciation .[ S 32(1)(iia), 226(3) ]

Vithalbhai G. Prajapati v. ITO ( 2018) 404 ITR 732 / 172 DTR 331/85 taxmann.com 249( Guj) (HC)

S.147: Reassessment- Recording of reasons is mandatory -Capital gains- Inflated cost of indexation of land- The Assessing Officer cannot supply reasons from any material or grounds outside the reasons recorded by him -Notice issued without application of mind is held to be in valid [ S.148 ]

Munir Ismail Voraji v. ITO (2018) 404 ITR 696 (Guj) (HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment -Capital gains- Sale of land on the basis of valuation by Government approved valuer -Reassessment notice based on the valuation by Valuation officer is held to be bad in law [ S.148 ]

Home Finders Housing Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 404 ITR 611/ 166 DTR 393 /93 Taxmnn.com 371/ 303 CTR 269 (Mad) (HC).Editorial: SLP of assessee is dismissed Home Finders Housing Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 256 Taxman 59 (SC)

S. 147 : Reassessment -Order passed without following the procedure -Order passed before disposal of objections raised by assessee on reasons recorded for reopening is curable irregularity does not vitiate the proceedings .Matter can be remitted for compliance with procedure [ S. 148 ]

CIT v. Vikas A. Shah. (2018) 404 ITR 627 (Guj) (HC)

S.143(3): Assessment – Construction business-Estimate of gross profit rate of 8% and peak credit of undisclosed cash receipts is finding of fact-No substantial question of law [ S.260A ]