Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


Pralay Pradyotkanti Ghosh v. ITO (IT) (2024) 208 ITD 163 (Ahd) (Trib.)

S. 9(1)(ii) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Salaries-Shipping, Inland waterways Transport and Air Transport-Salary-Salary income received by assessee-NRI from his foreign employer for working in international waters is exempt income-DTAA-India-Singapore. [S. 2(25A), 5(2)(b) 6, Art.8]

Ravi Jakhar v. ACIT (2024) 208 ITD 633 (Mum)(Trib.)

S. 2(42A) : Short-term capital asset-Capital gains-Unlisted shares-Investment in a residential house-Amended provisions of section 2(42A), which exclude holding period of unlisted shares being held for 12 months to be treated as long-term capital gain is applicable from assessment year 2015-16-Shares held around 31 months-Matter remanded to decide issue afresh as per provisions of law. [S. 45, 54F]

ND’s Art World Private Limited v. Add.CIT (OSD) (Bom)(HC) www.itatonline .org

S. 119 : Central Board of Direct Taxes- Circular – Return of income – Condonation of delay – Jurisdictional error – Power vested in CBDT – Order passed by Dy.CIT (OSD) (OT & WT) is without jurisdiction – Quashed and remanded to CBDT. [ S.119(2)(b) , 139, Art. 226 ]

Kesar Terminals & Infrastructure Ltd v. Dy.CIT ( 2025) 171 taxmann.com 800 /474 ITR 498 ( Bom)( HC)

S. 147: Reassessment – Objection disposed along with the assessment order – Order passed without disposing the objection by passing a separate order- Failure to dispose of objections separate order – Reopening notice and reassessment order is quashed and set aside . [S. 80 IA, 142 (1), 143(3),148, Art. 226 ]

Harshit Harish Jain v. The State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0103/2025(SC)

Maharashtra Stamps Act, 1958

S. 48 :Application for relief under section 47 – Period for application for relief – Refund Of Stamp Duty – Amended limitation period – Deed of cancellation- Deed of rectification- Accrued right to claim refund arose the moment the cancellation deed is validly executed- Entitled to the benefit of unamended provision of S.48(1)- No Power with Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune (CCRA) to recall its own order- Directed to refund the amount with interest @ 6 percent from the date of first order. [S. 47 ,50, Limitation Act, 1963 ,S.30, Registration Act, 1908 , S. 47 ]

Pawan International v. ITO (Chd)(Trib) (UR)

S. 272A : Penalty-Failure to answer questions-Sign statements-Furnish information-Substantial compliance-Levy of penalty is not justified. [S. 143(3), 272A(1)(d)]

Raj Auto Wheels Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, (2024) 111 ITR 336 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Mere disallowance of expenditure no penalty can be levied. [S. 274]

Finesse International Design P. Ltd. v. Add. CIT (2024)111 ITR 37 (SN)(Delhi)(Trib)

S. 271DA: Penalty for failure to comply with provisions of section 269ST-Transactions in cash exceeding prescribed limit-Bifurcating bills to each customer-Technical or venial breach-Penalty is deleted.[S. 269ST]

Ramkumar Reddy Satty v. ACIT (Hyd.)(Trib.) (UR)

S. 271D : Penalty-Takes or accepts any loan or deposit-Cash received from purchaser as final payment before Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of sale deed of property-Levy of penalty is not valid. [S. 269SS]

ITO v. Saraswati Wire And Cable Industries (Mum)(Trib)(UR)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Bogus purchases-Estimated addition-Levy of penalty is not valid.[S.69A]