Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


DCIT v. Anil Kaniya ( Mum) (Trib)www.itatonline.org

S.45: Capital gains- Suspicious transaction in shares- Penny stocks- Purchases of earlier years were not doubted – Shares were sold through DEMAT account- Addition cannot be made as cash credits- Burden is on revenue .[ S.68 ]

ITO v. Amit Vijay Kulkarni (Pune ) (Trib) www.itatonline.org

S.69: Unexplained investments- AIR information- Firm purchasing the land in the name of partner – Addition cannot be made in the hands of the partner on the ground that PAN of partner is shown in the registration deed .

S. Ganesh v ACIT (Mum) (Trib) www.itatonline .org

S.69: Unexplained investments- AIR information- Professional income shown by the assessee was exceeded the figure shown in the AIR information -Second owner- When the identity of first owner is established and assessed to tax – Addition cannot be made merely on the basis of AIR information.

Sangeeta Agrawal (Smt.) v. PCIT (2018) 409 ITR 254/ 257 Taxman 263/ 304 CTR 330 / 169 DTR 169 (MP)(HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed , PCIT v. Sangeeta Agrawal (Smt.) ( 2019) 262 Taxman 165 (SC)

Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 – Finance Act, 2016
S. 183 : Refund of tax- Adjustment of tax paid under the schme against tax payable on regular assessment -Tax in respect of voluntarily disclosed income not refundable –Application was rejected on the ground that notice u/s 143(2) was already issued – Revenue was to be directed to adjust amount which had been deposited by assessee for the tax liability for the Asst year 2014-15 . [ S.191 ]

Champa Devi v. Tax Recovery Officer (2018) 257 Taxman 296/ 170 DTR 36 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 281 : Certain transfers to be void – Property under attachment – Alternative remedy -Purchase of property is held to be void- If petitioner’s claim was that property was not liable for such attachment, then she had to make a claim before Tax Recovery Officer – Writ is not maintainable .[ Sch. II , R. 11, Art .226 ]

CIT v. Hapur Pilkhuwa Development Authority ( 2018) 304 CTR 337/ 169 DTR 281 /258 Taxman 125 (SC)

S. 261 : Appeal – Supreme Court –Strictures – Delay of 596 days- Misleading statement about pendency of similar appeal- Petition was dismissed – Awarded cost of Rs 10 lakhs to be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee .

Ashish Estate & Properties (P.) Ltd. & CIT (2018) 257 Taxman 585 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 260A : Appeal – High Court – Issue not raised before Tribunal, could not be allowed to be urged before High Court in appeal- However, only an issue of jurisdiction would be allowed, even if same was not raised before Tribunal – Disallowance of expenditure in respect of strategic investment- Alternative claim was raised before the Court was that disallowance cannot be in excess of total exempt income – As the alternative claim was not raised before the Tribunal the High Court declined to entertain the claim [S.14A,254(1), R.8D ]

CIT v. Bharati Vidyapeeth ( 2017) 87 taxmann.com 181 ( Bom) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed ;CIT v. Bharati Vidyapeeth (2018) 257 Taxman 557 (SC)

S. 260A : Appeal – High Court –Failure to remove objections – Prothonotary and Senior Master is not a judicial Officer – He has no power to condone the delay – Application with a delay of 958 days seeking restoration of its appeal – Restructuring of office of department and thereupon shifting of files to new independent/dedicated Commissionerate – Dismissed the appeal by observing that revenue authorities failed to remove office objections within prescribed period and, moreover, explanation offered did not constitute a sufficient cause for condoning such enormous delay, revenue’s application for restoration of appeal was to be declined .[Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rule 986 of 1980 ]

Fidelity Business Services India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 257 Taxman 266 / 169 DTR 73 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal –Powers- Deemed dividend –Buy back of shares -Tribunal has power to give directions for fresh enquiry into aspects of subject matter of appeal filed before it either suo motu or on any grounds raised by either party to appeal which have not been investigated or enquired into by lower authorities earlier and which may result in enhancement of tax liability of assessee – Direction is held to be valid .[ S.2(22) ( e ),115QA ]

Moin A Qureshi v. CIT (2018) 257 Taxman 406 / 170 DTR 169/ 305 CTR 37 /( 2019) 412 ITR 243(Delhi)(HC)

S. 245D : Settlement Commission – Failure to make full and true disclosure of undisclosed income with regard to property and bank accounts held abroad –Rejection of application is held to be valid [ S. 132(4),245C ]