Home › Archive for Tax Laws › Page 10
Category: Tax Laws

Archive for the ‘Tax Laws’ Category


Ashok Giri v. ACIT (2021) 278 Taxman 412 (Mad.) (HC) Harland Clarke Holding Software India (P) Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2021) 278 Taxman 409 (Mad.) (HC) Saroj Vinod Kumar Jain v. PCIT (2021) 278 Taxman 375 (Mad.) (HC)

Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020

S. 4: Filing of declaration and particulars to be furnished – Liberty is given to restore the appeal . [ S.28(va), 260A ]

CIT v. Young Women’s Christian Association (2021) 432 ITR 397 / 202 DTR 169 / 281 Taxman 537(Mad.)(HC)

S. 12AA : Procedure for registration-Trust or institution-Failure to furnish date of registration-Instrument of amendment of Bye-Laws with effect from 14-6-2009 submitted subsequently-Rectification and amendments made to the bye-laws of the society would only operate prospectively-Registration could not be granted with retrospective effect.

PCIT v. National Stock Exchange (2020) 272 Taxman 144 (Bom.)(HC), Editorial: National Stock Exchange v. Addl. CIT (2016) 158 ITD 850 / 178 TTJ 409 / 136 DTR 49 (Mum.)(Trib.), affirmed .

Securities Transaction Tax (STT) Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004

S. 105 :Penalty for failure to collect or pay securities transaction tax – Penalty not to be imposed inn certain cases – No penalty shall be imposed on assessee for having failed to collect Securities Transaction Tax (STT) or having collected, failed to pay such STT to credit of Central Government without providing it a reasonable opportunity to prove that there was reasonable cause for such failure [ S.108 ]

PCIT v. National Stock Exchange (2020) 272 Taxman 144 (Bom.)(HC)

Securities Transaction Tax (STT) Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004

S. 105 :Penalty for failure to collect or pay securities transaction tax – Penalty not to be imposed inn certain cases – No penalty shall be imposed on assessee for having failed to collect Securities Transaction Tax (STT) or having collected, failed to pay such STT to credit of Central Government without providing it a reasonable opportunity to prove that there was reasonable cause for such failure [ S.108 ]

Mahendra J. Vora v . Dy .CWT (2020) 187 DTR 25/ 313 CTR 355 (Bom)(HC) Editorial: SLP of assessee dismissed Mahendra J. Vora v. Dy.CWT ( 2022) 446 ITR 11 ( St) ( SC)

Wealth tax- Act , 1957

S.7: Value of assets – Land – Valuation date – Land sold subsequently for which agreement was entered in to before valuation date – Justified in taking the value on the basis of sale value [ S. 2(q), 27A, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation ) Act 1976 ]

DCIT(IT) v. Edgeverse Systems Ltd. (2020) 185 ITD 735 (Bang.) (Trib.)

S. 206AA : Requirement to furnish Permanent Account Number-Double taxation avoidance agreement-Rate of tax deductible will be 10 % instead 20%. [S. 90, 195]

Katira Construction Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 185 ITD 173 (Rajkot) (Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Ad-hoc addition-Books of account not rejected-Addition is held to be not valid.

Pentamedia Graphics Ltd. v. DCIT (2020) 80 ITR 555/185 ITD 45/190 DTR 391/205 TTJ 892 (Chennai)(Trib.)

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income-Investments in Indian companies which did not yielded exempt dividend income-Excluded while computing disallowance. [R. 8D(2)(iii)]

CIT v. Sushila Devi Kejriwal (Smt.) (2020) 429 ITR 552 ( 2021 ) 201 DTR 333(Mad)(HC) PCIT v. M. Balasubramaniam (2020)429 ITR 556 (Mad)(HC)

Wealth-Tax Act , 1956

S.27A: Appeal -High Court – Monetary Limit — Applicable to wealth tax Appeals . [ S. 2(e ), IT Act , S.260A ]

PCIT v. M. Balasubramaniam (2020)429 ITR 556/ ( 2021 ) 201 DTR 333 (Mad)(HC) CIT v. Sushila Devi Kejriwal (Smt.) (2020) 429 ITR 552 (Mad)

Wealth-Tax Act , 1956

S. 2(e ) (a) : Asset — Urban land — Urban land on which construction has been prohibited — Not an asset for purposes of wealth -Tax .[ S.16(3) ]