Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


PCIT.v. S.R.Trust (2021) 123 taxmann.com 311 / 277 Taxman 133 (Mad)(HC)

S. 153C: Assessment – Income of any other person – Search
The materials seized did not indicate any inflation of purchase expenses- Assessment is held to be bad in law. [S.12AA, 132 ]

M. Vivek v. Dy.CIT (2021) 197 DTR 12/ 318 CTR 270 (Mad) (HC )

S. 153A : Assessment – Search or requisition – Objections raised by the Assessee – Rejected with reasons – No violation of Principles of Natural Justice.[ Art . 226 ]

Sima Agencies v. ITO (2021) 318 CTR 516 / 198 DTR 33 / 110 CCH 52/ 279 Taxman 171 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment – Within four years – High Court directed AO to re-look at the matter in light of the declaratory and curative amendment in 40(a)(ia) being retrospective from 1-4-2005 [S. 40(a)(ia), 148 , 194C, Art , 226 ]

Devebhai Mafatlal Patel v. ACIT (2021) 318 CTR 722 / 110 CCH 53 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment – After the expiry of four years- No failure to disclose any tangible material – Reassessment is held to be bad in law .[S. 40(b)(ia) , 148]

PCIT v. Headstrong Services India Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 197 DTR 329 /318 CTR 369 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel – Where the matter was remanded by the ITAT for de novo assessment, the entire procedure under 144C had to be followed .[ S.254 (1) ]

New Lakshmi Jewellers v. PCIT (2021) 431 ITR 570/318 CTR 713 / 278 Taxman 403/200 DTR 264(Bom) (HC)

S. 132B : Application of seized or requisitioned assets – High court could not direct release of gold in favour of the alleged owner when appeal before the CIT(A) was pending.[S.250, Art .226 ]

Microsoft India (R&D) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2021) 431 ITR 483 /197 DTR 409 / 318 CTR 654 / 2023) 153 taxmann.com 199 (Delhi) (HC)/ Editorial ,SLP of Revenue dismissed ,PCIT v. Microsoft India (R&D) (P.) Ltd ( 2023) 294 Taxman 342 ( SC)/ PCIT v. Microsoft India (R And D) Pvt. Ltd. (2024) 464 ITR 587 (SC)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arm’s length price – Rejection of comparables is a finding of fact- Appellate Tribunal – Decision of High Court is available – Remad is not justified – Additional evidence is produced -Remand is justified . [ S.92B, 254(1) ]

PCIT v. Akshit Kumar (2021) 197 DTR 121 /318 CTR 26 / 277 Taxman 423 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 68: Cash credits – Opening stock accepted in scrutiny – Sales made from opening stock cannot be treated as bogus. [S. 56, 133A]

Rajendra Kumar Jain .v. ITO (2020) 120 taxmann.com 293 / (2021) 277 Taxman 236 (Mad) (HC)

S. 57 : Income from other sources – Deductions –AO is not justified in disallowing claim for deduction u/s 57(iii) for interest paid when Assessee given names of lenders, loans were availed through banking channels and interest paid was allowed as deduction from year to year – Matter remanded to AO.[ S.57(iii) ]

PCIT v. Dr. Ranjan Pai (2021) 431 ITR 250/197 DTR 314/ 318 CTR 603/ 278 Taxman 138 (Karn) (HC)

S.56 : Income from other sources – Property received without consideration or for consideration less than its fair market value — Issue of bonus shares by capitalization of reserves does not result in inflow of any funds or property and is not assessable under section 56(2)(vii)(c)[ S.56 (2)(vii)(c)]