Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


CIT v. Continuum Wind Energy (India) (P.) Ltd. (2021) 430 ITR 52 / 276 Taxman 286 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 43A : Rate of exchange – Foreign currency – loan availed for acquisition of fixed assets- Depreciation is held to be allowable on such adjustment- No exempt income – No disallowance can be made [ S. 14A,32, R.8D ]

Investor Financial Education Academy v. ITO(E) ( 2020) 196 DTR 1 / (2021) 276 Taxman 57 / 318 CTR 353 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 12AA : Procedure for registration –Trust or institution- Charitable purpose – Imparting financial education/awareness to investor in field of investments- Rejection of registration is held to be not valid . [S. 2(15 ) , Companies Act , 1956 , S. 25 ]

Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. v. Add.CIT( 2020) 196 DTR 168 / (2021) 276 Taxman 463 / 318 CTR 94 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 5 : Scope of total income – Accrual of income – Advance on discounting of bills – Method of accounting – Not taxable as income of the relevant year [ S. 4, 145 ]

Kalra Papers Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2021) 430 ITR 291/ 279 Taxman 194/ 204 DTR 146/ 321 CTR 524 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 4 : Filing of declaration and particulars to be furnished-Settlement of Disputes-Ex parte order set aside to the Tribunal-Assessee Bound By Undertaking Given To File Application Under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. [IT Act, S. 253, 254(1)

Rattha Citadines Boulevard Chennai Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2021) 430 ITR 7/ 279 Taxman 262 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Rejection of claim for deduction-Reduction of loss does not result in income-Penalty levied was deleted .Levy of penalty.

Babuji Jacob v. ITO (2021) 430 ITR 259 / 277 Taxman 502(Mad.)(HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Notice must specify whether there has been concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income-Levy of penalty is held to be not valid. [S. 274]

Manpowergroup Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (TDS) (2021) 430 ITR 399 / 277 Taxman 108 / 198 DTR 355/ 319 CTR 267(Delhi)(HC)

S. 264 : Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Deduction at source-Certificate for lower rate-Determination of rates without following prescribed procedure-Order is held to be not valid- Order passed with approval of Commissioner-Revision is not maintainable-No alternative remedy- Writ is maintainable. [S. 197, R.28AA, Art. 226]

Sesa Starlite Ltd. v. CIT (2021) 430 ITR 121/318 CTR 197/ 277 Taxman 443/ 206 DTR 315 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue- Queries raised but order without application of mind and consideration of material provided- Revision of order is held to be valid. [S. 10B]

CIT v. Cyber Park Development and Constructions Ltd. (2021) 430 ITR 55/276 Taxman 460 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Commissioner had no power to revise assessment for inadequacy of enquiries or insufficiency of material on record-Order of Tribunal is affirmed- Condonation of delay of 360 days is held to be justified. [S. 254(1)]

CIT v. Shriram Ownership Trust (2021) 430 ITR 356/197 DTR 153/ 318 CTR 233 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Substantial question of law-Additional questions cannot be raised by respondent. [S.144A, 260A(4)]