Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Tata Motors Ltd. v. DCIT (2020) 184 ITD 680 / 208 TTJ 486 (Mum.) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Losses-Set off of one head against income from another-There is no provision in section 115BBD to eliminate dividend income received from specified foreign company before setting off of loss-Revision proceeding is quashed. [S. 71, 115BBD]

Raipur Steel Casting India (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2020) 184 ITD 86 / 208 TTJ 450 (Kol.)(Trib)/Srinath Ji Furnishing ( P) Ltd v.PCIT (2020) 184 ITD 86 /208 TTJ 450 (Kol.) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Specified domestic transactions– When clause (i) of section 92BA has been omitted by Finance Act, 2017 with effect from 01-04-2017, without any saving clause of General Clauses Act, it would be treated as said clause never existed in Statute Book-Revision is held to be bad in law. [S. 92BA]

Ampacet Cyprus Ltd. v. DCIT (2020) 184 ITD 743 / 195 DTR 289 / 208 TTJ 653 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 255 : Appellate Tribunal-Reference to Special Bench-Interest-Paid by subsidiary-Matter referred to Larger Bench to examine connotations of expression ‘paid’ appearing in article 11 as in various decisions of Tribunal, there was no discussion about connotations of expression ‘paid’ and these decisions simply proceed on basis that since expression ‘paid’ is used in article 11(1) of India Cyprus tax treaty, taxability of interest can only be on cash basis-DTAA-India-Cyprus. [Art. 11(1)]

Pandhes Infracon (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 184 ITD 868 / 189 DTR 340 / 205 TTJ 478 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 254(2A) : Appellate Tribunal-Stay-Paid half of demand-Garnishee proceedings-Stay was granted. [S. 220, 226(3)]

Sandeep Kumar Jain v. ACIT (2020) 184 ITD 276 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Delay of 92 days-Averments made in the application for condonation of delay was not supported by any affidavit either of assessee or Chartered Accountant-Appeal was dismissed.

Keshavlal Devkaranbhai Patel. v. ACIT (2020) 184 ITD 131 (Rajkot)(Trib.)

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner(Appeals)-Duties-Penalty-Search initiated on or after 1st June, 2007-Penalty order confirmed by the CIT(A) merely on ground that written submissions filed against said order did not bear signature of assessee-Order was set aside to the file of CIT(A). [S. 271AAA]

3S Technologies & Automation (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 184 ITD 895 (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 234E : Fee-Default in furnishing the statements-order pertaining period prior to 1-6-2015-Matter remanded to the file of CIT(A). [S. 200A, 250]

ITO v. Yashovardhan Tyagi (2020) 184 ITD 461 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 194J : Deduction at source-Fees for professional or technical services-Distribution of film-Minimum Guarantee Royalty (MGR)-Copy right-Royalty-Right of exhibition of cinematographic films-Not copy rights hence do not fall under term Royalty-Not liable to tax deduction at source-No disallowance can be made. [S. 40(a)(ia)]

Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 184 ITD 204 (Cuttack)(Trib.)

S. 194H : Deduction at source-Commission or brokerage-Discount on pre-paid sim cards-Not required to deduct tax at source.

Cessna Garden Developers (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 184 ITD 814 (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Development of Special Economic Zone-Lease rent income offered under the head income from house property. [S. 22, 80IAB]