Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


R.K. Garg v. UOI ( 1981) 4 SCC 675 / 1981 AIR 2138 (SC) / 1982 SCR (1) 947 /(1982 ) 133 ITR 329 (SC)

Special Bearer Bonds (Immunities & Exemptions) Ordinance, 1981( 1981) 127 ITR 55 (St)
Special Bearer Bonds ( Immunities and Exemption ) Act , 1981 ( 1981) 129 ITR 30 (St)

S.3 : Immunities – Enacted retrospectively—Legislative power conferred on the President under Article 123—Is co-extensive with power of Parliament to make laws—Constitutional validity—Legislative intent behind enactment of the Bearer Bonds Act, 1981 is to combat menacing problem of black money— Classification between holders of black money and others made by the impugned Act is practical, real, intelligible and not arbitrary and irrational limited in scope— Bearer Bonds Act, 1981 accordingly is not violative of Art. 14 of Constitution. [ Constitution of India , Art , 14 , 123 ]

UOI v. M.V. Valliappan (1999) 238 ITR 1027/105 Taxman 605/155 CTR 193 (SC)

S. 171 : Partition – Assessment – Hindu undivided family – Provision that partial partitions after 31-12-78, not to be recognised for income tax and wealth tax purposes – Provision within legislative competence of Parliament – Not ultra vires charging section – Cut-off date not discriminatory. [Wealth-tax Act, 1957, S. 20A. Constitution of India, art. 14; Sch VII, List I, item 82]

Ravi Agarwal v. UOI (2019) 410 ITR 399 / 173 DTR 194 / 306 CTR 177 / 260 Taxman 352 (SC)

S. 80DD: Medical treatment of dependent – Observations – Disability – Jeevan Aadhar – Amount of annuity under the policy is to be released only after the death of the person assured – Purpose is to secure the future of the person suffering from disability, after the death of the parent/guardian – Provision is valid in law – Considering the several difficult situations where the handicapped person may need the payment on annuity or lumpsum basis even during the life time of their parents/guardians, it is for the legislature to take care of theses aspects and to provide suitable provision by making necessary amendments in S.80DD. [Constitution of India Art. 14, 32]

Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works v. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 640 / 280 CTR 521 / 126 DTR 233 (SC)

S.32 : Depreciation – Prior to 1.4.1999 – Intangible assets – Acquisition of trademarks, copyright and know-how of erstwhile firm – Held, intellectual property rights such as trademarks, copyrights and know-how constitute “plant” for purposes of depreciation – The department is not entitled to rewrite the terms of a commercial agreement. [S. 35A, 35AB, 43(3)]

Laxman Nainani v. Dy. CIT (2020) 80 ITR 1 /( 2021 ) 210 TTJ 562 / 204 DTR 97 ( Jaipur) (Trib)

S. 271AAB:Peanlty -Search initiated on or after Ist day of July 2012- Surrender of income – Recording of specific charge is mandatory – Penalty levied was quashed . [ S.153A ]

UMG Properties P. Ltd. v .ACIT (2020)80 ITR 448 ( Delhi) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Loan against property -Interest capitalized – Inadvertently claimed in the return as deduction – Levy of penalty is not valid .

Laxman Nainani v. Dy. CIT (2020) 80 ITR 1 / ( 2021 ) 210 TTJ 562 / 204 DTR 97 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Not specifying a specific charge – Levy of penalty is not valid .[ S.69B]

Hindon Forge P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2020) 80 ITR 545 (Delhi ) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Recording of satisfaction-Failure to state specific charge of penalty —Penalty deleted . [ S.274 ]

Dy. CIT v. Galderma India Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 80 ITR 452( Mum) (Trib)

S.271(1) ( c): Penalty — Concealment of income —Addition on basis of which penalty levied was deleted – Penalty will not survive .

Arrow Digital P. Ltd. v Dy. CIT (2020) 80 ITR 360 (Ahd) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Gratuity and exhibition expenses – Genuineness of expenses not doubted -Failure to deduct tax at source- Levy of penalty is held to be not justified .