Category: Tax Laws

Archive for the ‘Tax Laws’ Category


Addl. CIT v. Leena Gandhi Tiwari ( Mum) ( Trib) www.itatonline .org

Black Money ( Undisclosed Foreign Income & Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act , 2015.

S. 43: Penalty for failure to furnish return of income an information , or furnish inaccurate particulars about an asset (including interest in any entity )located outside India- Foreign Bank Account – Signatory for late Mother-Amount was donated to the Charity –Not beneficial owner – Mere no disclosure is not valid ground for levy of penalty – Deletion of penalty was affirmed . [ S.10(3), Income -tax Act , 1961 132(4) 139 , 153A]

Yudhishthira Kapur v. ACWT (2021)90 ITR 90 (SN)(Delhi) (Trib)

Wealth tax Act, 1957.

S. 2(ea): Asset – Land under acquisition by Government – Not includible .

D. Jayaraman v. ACWT (2021)90 ITR 81 (SN)(Chennai) (Trib)

Wealth tax Act, 1957.

S. 2(e)(a): Assets – Stock in trade -Entries in books of account not relevant to decide nature of asset –Lands held as stock in trade – Not liable to be assessed as assets liable to be wealth -tax Act . [ S. 17 ]

Giridhari Govindas (HUF) v. ACIT ( 2021 ) 209 TTJ 953 ( Chennai ) ( Trib)

Wealth -tax Act , 1957 .

S. 2(ea) : Asset- Lack of evidence to support the land being vacant as of the cut-off date and evidence to the contrary, issue set aside to the file of AO for verification, whether the particular asset can be brought to tax under the Wealth Tax Act [ S. 16(3)]

ACIT v. Jatinder Mehra (2021) 212 TTJ 681 (Delhi) ( Trib)

Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015

S. 2(11): Asset located outside India -b Beneficial interest – Notice issued to assessee and order passed making addition on account of amount received in bank account where assessee is allegedly beneficial owner-Assessee not liable to be taxed. [ S. 5, 10(3) Companies Act, 2013 , S. 89(10), 90 (1)]

Ashoka Ispat Udyog v. PCIT (2021) 439 ITR 391 (Orissa)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Order passed without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee was held to be not valid-Revision order which was affirmed by the Tribunal was set aside-directed the Commissioner to pass the order in conformity with the provisions of the Act. [S. 254(1)]

PCIT v. Deccan Jewellera P. Ltd (2021) 438 ITR 131 / 206 DTR 257/ 322 CTR 952/ 283 Taxman 578 (AP)(HC) PCIT v. Deccan Tobacco Company (2021) 438 ITR 131 (AP)(HC) PCIT v. Dte Exports P. Ltd. (2021) 438 ITR 131 (AP)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Search and seizure-Undisclosed investment-Excess stock assessed as business income-Possible view-Revision order held to be not justified. [S. 69, 115BBE, 132, 153D, 260A]

Rashesh Manhar Bhansali v. ACIT ACIT ( 2021) 214 TTJ 529/ 208 DTR 97/ ( 2022) 193 ITD 141 ( Mum ) Trib) www.itatonline.org

Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign income and Assets ) and imposition of tax Act, 2015

Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign income and Assets ) and imposition of tax Act, 2015

S. 2(11): Undisclosed asset located outside India – Applicability of the Statute – Accounts not in existence at the Black Money Act, 2015 came into force – The new legislation operates for those accounts and assets too. [ ITAct S. 139(1 ]

Boddu R amesh v. PCIT (2021) 281 Taxman 587 (Telangana) (HC)

Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020

S. 4 : Filing of declaration and particulars to be furnished S. 4 : Filing of declaration and particulars to be furnished – Time limits – Appellant -Disputed tax – Dismissal of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals ) as time barred – Tribunal condoning the delay – Declaration was held to be valid- Respondents were directed to accept the revised declaration filed by the petitioner . [ S.2 (1)(a)(i), 2(1) (j)( B) , ITA, S. 246A, Art , 226 ]

Bhupendra Harilal Mehta v. PCIT (2021)435 ITR 220/ 201 DTR 89/ 320 CTR 483 (Bom) (HC)

The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.

S.3: Amount payable by declarant – Search cases – Enhanced rate of tax – Assessment – Income of any other person – No evidence that assessee was involved in alleged bogus transaction – Enhanced rate of tax could not be levied . [ S.4,5 ]