Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Omprakash T. Mehta v. ITO (2020) 274 Taxman 110 / 193 DTR 25 / 316 CTR 280 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment –Capital gains – Year of taxability – Offered on the basis of consideration received – In response to notice u/s 148 the entire consideration was offered and accepted – levy of penalty is held to be not justified for furnishing in accurate particulars of income [ S.45 , 147 ,148 ]

Omprakash T. Mehta v. ITO (2020) 274 Taxman 110 / 193 DTR 25 / 316 CTR 280 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment –Capital gains – Year of taxability – Offered on the basis of consideration received – In response to notice u/s 148 the entire consideration was offered and accepted – levy of penalty is held to be not justified for furnishing in accurate particulars of income [ S.45 , 147 ,148 ]

Vijaya Hospitality and Resorts Ltd. v. CIT (2020) 269 Taxman 513 / 188 DTR 183 / 315 CTR 412 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Set off of carried forward loss (Unabsorbed portion of depreciation) [ S.68 71 ,115BBE [

Vijaya Hospitality and Resorts Ltd. v. CIT (2020) 269 Taxman 513 / 188 DTR 183 / 315 CTR 412 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Set off of carried forward loss (Unabsorbed portion of depreciation) [ S.68 71 ,115BBE [

PCIT v. Summit India Water Treatment and Services Ltd. (2020) 271 Taxman 69 / 189 DTR 160 / 315 CTR 682 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Shipping business – Non-residents –Failure to deduct tax at source – Revision is held to be not valid – Order of Appellate Tribunal is affirmed [ S. 40(a)(ia) , 143 (3) , 172 194C , 195 ]

CIT v. Vijay Kumar Koganti (2020) 275 Taxman 394 / 195 DTR 428 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Unexplained investments -Increase in capital investment – Specific question was raised in the original assessment proceedings – Revision is held to be bad in law [ S.69 ]

PCIT v. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. (2020) 114 taxmann.com 617 (P& H (HC ) Editorial : SLP against the High Court order is granted PCIT v. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. (2020) 269 Taxman 575 (SC.)

S.260A : Appeal – High Court –Appellate Tribunal -Stay granted matters – Delay of more than 365 days – Delay in disposal of appeal not attributable to assessee- No substantial question of law . [ S.254(2A) ]

I.C.D.S. Ltd. v. CIT (2020) 273 Taxman 12 / 194 DTR 18 / 316 CTR 678 (SC)

S. 251 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Duties Cross examination of witness –Order of High Court set aside and matter remanded to the Office of CIT (A) to give an opportunity of cross examination of witness and decide according to law – Demand and attachment stayed until the matter decided by the CIT (A) [ S. 220 ]

Equity Intelligence India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2020) 272 Taxman 332 / 192 DTR 41 / 315 CTR 846 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 246A : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Stay -Rejection of stay application blindly following the office memorandum was set aside – Directed to decide the stay application on merit [ S. 226 250 , Art , 226 ]

CIT v. M.A. Jacob & Company (2020) 275 Taxman 529 / 194 DTR 81( 2021) 320 CTR 209 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 245D : Settlement Commission – No power of review – Order of Settlement Commission is set aside and directed to decide the issue in accordance with law . [ S. 154, 234A, 234B , 234C 245D(4) , 254E, 245F , 245I , Art , 226 ]