Category: Tax Laws

Archive for the ‘Tax Laws’ Category


Trent Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2025) 304 Taxman 208 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 245 : Refund-Set off of refunds against tax remaining payable-Adjustment order passed by Assessing Officer was in gross violation of principles of natural justice and fair play-The adjustment was to quashed and revenue was directed to deposit adjusted amount in Court. [Art. 226]

GIA India Laboratory (P) Ltd v. Assessment Unit, Income-tax [2024] 168 taxmann.com 432 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Transfer pricing-Advance Pricing Agreement (APA)-Penalty for concealment-Timely filing of modified return under section 92CD negates any event of concealment; penalty under section 271(1)(c) is prima facie without jurisdiction.[S.92CD]

Dolphin Suppliers (P) Ltd.v. UOI (2025) 477 ITR 7 (Cal)(HC) Editorial : Dolphin Suppliers (P) Ltd.v. UOI ( W.P.A. No. 5994 of 2022 dt. 4-4-2022 ),Single Judge.

Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992.
S. 28A : Securities, Markets and Exchanges-Offences and Penalties – Recovery of tax – Attachment and sale of property – Auction sale-Recovery of penalty by modes such as attachment and sale of properties Auction sale of property by Securities and Exchange Board of India for recovery of penalty-Failure by successful bidder to pay balance of consideration Whether forfeiture of entire earnest money deposit justified Provisions under income-tax law to apply with necessary modifications-Automatic forfeiture of entire deposit not contemplated Provisions giving Tax Recovery Officer discretion to order forfeiture of entire deposit or limit it to extent of actual loss incurred by authorities discretion Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 – Attachment of property-Recovery of Tax/Arrears of Tax/Crown Debt/Debt owed to State- Has discretion to order forfeiture of entire deposit or limit it to extent of actual loss incurred by authorities discretion- Recovery of penalty-Auction sale of property-Failure by successful bidder co pay balance of consideration-Default In payment by purchaser within period specified Provision for forfeiture of deposit to secured creditor and resale of property with defaulting purchaser forfeiting all claims to property or Co any part of sum for which it may be subsequently sold No discretion with authorities as under income-tax law to quantify actual loss or damages incurred-Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 B 9/5. [Income Tax Act, 1961-Sch. II, R. 58-Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Or. 21 R. 86, Indian Contract Act, 1872, S.73, 74]

Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. v CIT (2025) 477 ITR 355 (SC) Editorial : Himachal Pradesh Tourism Dev. Corp. Ltd v. CIT (2025) 477 ITR 349 (HP)(HC)

Expenditure Tax Act, 1987.
S. 11:Reassessment- Expenditure-tax-Reassessment -No limitation was prescribed – Not barred by limitation- Appeal-High Court- Court cannot reappreciate evidence to record a different finding of fact even if another view possible on basis of material on record- SLP dismissed.[S. 8, 9, 11(1)(a), 11(1)b), Art. 136]

Vinil Venugopal v. DDIT (Inv.), FAIU-4(1) ( SB ) (Mum) ( Trib) www.itatonline .org Ranjeeta Vinil v. DDIT (Inv.), FAIU-4(1)( SB ). ( Mum)( Trib) www.itatonline .org

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

S. 43 : Penalty for failure to furnish return of income or furnish inaccurate particulars of an asset ( Including financial interest in any entity ) outside India- Non-disclosure of foreign assets – Use of word “may” in section 43 is directory and not mandatory – Assessing Officer has discretion to impose or waive penalty depending on facts – Mere failure to disclose foreign investment does not automatically warrant penalty – Interpretation of statutes . [S. 46(3)]

Ramakrishna Mills (CBE) Ltd. v. JCIT (2025) 476 ITR 161 /173 taxmann.com 918 (Mad) (HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
book profits-Prior-period expenses-Hyper-technical Revision order directing addition of such amount in book profits, unsustainable-Order of Tribunal was set aside. [S. 115JA,260A]

Deepak Jain v. ACIT ( Delhi)(Trib) www . itatonline ,org

Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) Act , 2015 .

S. 10(3) :Assessment – Charge of tax Undisclosed foreign asset – Asset ceased before 1.7.2015 – Not taxable – Penalty – Non-disclosure of asset – Ceased before AY 2012–13 -Penalty not leviable. – Doctrine of election/approbate and reprobate- Once proceedings under the IT Act are consciously chosen, the Revenue cannot subsequently invoke BMA. [ S. 2(11), 3(1) , 41, 43 ,BMA Valuation Rule, 3, Income tax Act , 1961 , S. 90, 131(IA), 132, 132(4) , 132(4A) , 292C ]

Rashesh Manhar Bhansali. v. ACIT (2025) 212 ITD 210 (Mum) (Trib.) Editorial : Rashesh Manhar Bhansali v . Add.CIT ( 2022)193 ITD 141 ( Mum)( Trib) , recalled .

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

S.18:Appeal to Appellate Tribunal – Rectification of mistake apparent from the record – Failure to consider written submission- Mistake apparent from record – Order is recalled – Tribunal in the original order Rashesh Manhar Bhansali v . Add.CIT ( 2022)193 ITD 141 ( Mum)( Trib) has up held the provisions of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income & Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 can indeed be pressed into service in respect of an undisclosed foreign asset or income even if it was already in the knowledge of any Governmental authorities, other than the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, as at the point when the said legislation came into force. Accounts not in existence at the Black Money Act, 2015 came into force – The new legislation operates for those accounts and assets too.[ S. 2(11), 5(1)(i),18(7),40(1 ), 40(2) , ITAct , 132(4),254(2) R. 3(1)( e)]

C. Prasannakumaran Unnithan v. CIT [2023] 156 taxmann.com 397/ (2025) 342 CTR 684 / (2024) 244 DTR 295 (Ker)(HC) Editorial : C. Prasannakumaran Unnithan v.CIT [2024] 169 taxmann.com 136 / (2025) 342 CTR 678 / (2024) 244 DTR 289 (Ker)(HC), division bench modified the condition of deposit of 20 per cent.

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Procedure-Sufficient opportunity was provided-Writ petition is dismissed-If the assessee deposits 20 per cent of the assessed tax, the stay application shall be decided within a period of one month from the date of filing of the appeal before Tribunal and stay application.[S. 253, Art. 226.

Seth Chagan Mall Hira Lakll Dugar Charitable Trust v. ITO, (E) (2025) 210 ITD 266 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes-Failure to file Form No 9A along with the return-Filed later on-Denial of exemption is not justified. [S.11(2)(ii), 139, Form No 9A]