Category: Tax Laws

Archive for the ‘Tax Laws’ Category


ACWT v. J. Jayalalitha (2024) 298 Taxman 5 /337 CTR 379(SC) Editorial: J.Jayalalitha v. ACWT (2011) 337 ITR 1/ (2012) 20 taxmann.com 736 (Mad)( HC)

Wealth -tax Act , 1957

S.35B: Failure to furnish returns of net wealth-Mechanical approval – High Court quashed the proceedings – Death of assessee – Criminal appeal abated Non-filing of return is not a continuing offence – Court held that since sole assessee had died and she had been discharged, criminal appeal stood abated and disposed of . [ Art. 136 ]

Dun & Bradstreet Technologies & Data Services (P.) Ltd v.PCIT (2024) 297 Taxman 323 (Mad)(HC)

S. 264 : Commissioner-Revision of other orders-concessional rate of tax on dividend distributed to its foreign holding company-Not justified in rejecting revision application on ground that assessee could have filed a revised return or an appeal under section 248-DTAA-India-Mauritius-Matter remanded to decide on merit. [S. 9(1)(i), 90, 139(5), 195, 248, art. 10(2),Art.226]

CIT (E) v. Gangadeen Niranjan Lal Data Charitable Trust (2024) 297 Taxman 294/463 ITR 695 (SC) Editorial : CIT (E) v. Gangadeen Niranjan Lal Data Charitable Trust (2024) 159 taxmann.com 207 / 463 ITR 690 (Raj)(HC)

S. 80G : Donation-No specific time frame mandated for carrying out charitable activities under section 800G(vi) of the Act-Order of Tribunal directing the Commissioner to grant approval is affirmed by High Court-SLP of Revenue is dismissed.[S. 80G(vi), Art.136]

Packirisamy Senthilkumar v. Government Of India [2024] 461 ITR 473 (Mad)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Order based on New reasons-Adequate opportunity should be provided-Order is set aside.[S.144B, 148, 148A(b), Art.226]

Jayant Nanda v. UOI (2024) 298 Taxman 276 (Delhi)(HC)

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

S. 10: Assessment – Non -Resident Indian living in Dubai – Serach – Undiclosed foreign asseets – Look Out Circular (LOC) – Mere fact that information sought through Foreign Tax and Tax Research from other jurisdictions such as UAE was still awaited could not be reason to keep LOC against assessee pending to curtail his fundamental rights and thus, LOC is quashed . [ ITAct , 132 , Art. 226 ]

Santosh Bhadoriya v. UOI (2024) 298 Taxman 602 (MP)(HC)

Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 , Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 .

S. 2(9) : Benami Transactions- Provisional attachment order – Alternative remedy – Writ petition is dismissed .[ S.24(1), 24(3) , Art. 226 ]

Umesh Garg v. UOI (2024) 297 Taxman 91 (All.)(HC)

Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act , 2020.

S. 4 : Filing of declaration -Delay in filing of appeal – Rejection of application by Designated Authority is affirmed .[ IT Act , 271AAB , Art. 226 ]

Neelam Ajit Phatarpekar (Mrs.) v. Asst. CIT (2024)462 ITR 467 /336 CTR 749 (Bom)( HC)

Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020

S. 3: Declaration- Rejection of declaration — Erroneous determination of tax — Part payment made is not considered – Disabled to file revised Form 3 due to technical glitches on Website – Marginal delay in filing Form 4 attributable to respondents — Department is directed to accept declaration subject to making of payments of tax. [ S. 3, 5(1),5(2) , Art. 226 ]

Dass Media Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT [2023] 156 taxmann.com 286 / (2024)460 ITR 521/336 CTR 814 (Mad)(HC)

Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (2020) 422 ITR 121 (St)

S. 4: Filing of declaration – -Refund — Set-Off of refund —Capital gains for assessment year 2016 -17 – Set off of demand for the Assessment year 2014 -15 -Direction is issued to Department to make suitable adjustments to transfer amount paid under Scheme for Assessment year 2016-17 .[ S. 3, 5 , ITAct , S.244A , Art . 226 ]

Ardent Info Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT [2023] 152 taxmann.com 496 / (2024)460 ITR 421 (Delhi)(HC)

Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (2020) 422 ITR 121 (St)

S.2(1)(a) : Appellant – Declarant – Pendency of appeal – Physically and digital mode – No difference between appeal admitted physical and digital mode – Rejection is not valid .[ ITAct, 1961 , S. 254(2), Art . 226 ]