Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


Agasthiya Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 403 ITR 288/255 Taxman 247 / 166 DTR 300 / 305 CTR 399(Mad) (HC)

S. 281 : Certain transfers to be void – Transfer of property by legal heirs of original assessee — Tax recovery officer has no power to declare transfer is void- Department was granted liberty to file a civil suit to declare the sale transaction and sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner, null and void. [ S.222, 226 ]

Sundaram Finance Ltd v. ACIT (2018) 403 ITR 407 / 170 DTR 8 /304 CTR 846 / 93 taxman.com 250 (Mad) (HC)Editorial: SLP of assessee is dismissed , Sundaram Finance Ltd v. Dy.CIT ( 2018) 259 Taxman 220 ( SC)

S.271(1)( c):Penalty — Concealment of income — Depreciation -Notice did not show nature of default – Assessee had understood purport and import of notice- Levy of penalty is held to be valid .[ S. 32 , 274 ]

Agasthiya Granite P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 403 ITR 279 (Mad) (HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue- Exclusion of the deduction allowed u/s 80IB while quantifying the deduction u/s 80HHC – Two views possible – Revision was held to be not valid . [ S.80HH ]

Sunflower Broking Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 403 ITR 305 (Guj) (HC)

S. 221 : Collection and recovery – Assessee deemed in default -Pendency of appeal before CIT(A) -Attachment of bank account and recovery of amount -Recovery of the amount was held to be without following the due process of law -Stay was granted and directed the revenue 85 percent of tax recovered [ S. 156 ]

CIT v. N. S. Software (FIRM) (2018) 403 ITR 259 / 165 DTR 201 / 302 CTR 136 / 255 Taxman 230(Delhi) (HC)

S. 153C : Assessment – Income of any other person – Search – No satisfaction was recorded sating that how seized material belonged to the assssee. In the absence of any incriminating material , notice was held to ne in valid [ S. 132 ]

CIT v. Tata Ceramics Ltd. (2018) 403 ITR 389/ 168 DTR 417 (Ker) (HC)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years- Reassessment —Interest on deposits not disclosed in return — Details were available in the books of account or the balance-sheet or profit and loss account could not absolve the assessee from a true and correct disclosure of material facts necessary for assessment. Explanation 1 to S. 147 is applicable – Reassessment is valid [ S.148 ]

Arjun Malhotra v. CIT (2018) 403 ITR 354/ 166 DTR 235 / 255 Taxman 399/ 304 CTR 454 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 54F : Capital gains – Investment in a residential house – Assessee owning a house on date of transfer is not entitle to benefit under S.54F [ S.45]

Arjun Malhotra v. CIT (2018) 403 ITR 354/166 DTR 235/ 255 Taxman 399/ 304 CTR 454 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 48 : Capital gains – Computation -Difference between market value and consideration declared, burden is on the revenue to prove -Addition was deleted [S. 45,52(1) ]

Arjun Malhotra v. CIT (2018) 403 ITR 354/166 DTR 235/ 255 Taxman 399/ 304 CTR 454 (Delhi) (HC)

S.45:Capital gains — Shares purchased was pledged with bank – Actual date of transfer is when shares were delivered by bank to entity in subsequent assessment year. [ S.48 ]

CIT v. Allen Career Institute. (2018) 403 ITR 375 / 161 DTR 321 (Raj) (HC)

S. 40(b)(v) : Amounts not deductible – Partner – Remuneration – Interest earned on investment of surplus money is not part of business income for computing the remuneration to partners – Disallowance was held to be justified .[ S.56 ]