Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


North Eastern Constructions v. ITO (2020) 183 ITD 348 /194 DTR 257 / 206 TTJ 354 (Guwahati)(Trib.)

S. 271B : Penalty-Failure to get accounts audited-Vague notice-Failure mention specific charge-Levy of penalty is held to be not valid-Delay in filing tax audit report-Reasonable cause-Levy of penalty is held to be not justified. [S.273B]

Anil Abhubhai Odedara v. ITO (2020) 183 ITD 313 (Rajkot) (Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Estimate of income-Satisfaction-8% of contractual receipts-Levy of penalty is held to be not justified.

ITO v. Dushyant Manilal Pandya. (2020) 183 ITD 581 (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 268A : Appeal-Monetary limit-Penalty-Appeal of revenue is dismissed [S. 271(1)(c)]

Hi-tech Estates & Promoters (P.) Ltd. (2020) 84 ITR 10 / 183 ITD 690/ 207 TTJ 209 (Cuttack)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Construction and service contracts-Percentage completion-Project completion method-Cannot be declared as invalid-Provisions of section 43CB prescribing percentage completion method for determining profits and gains of a construction company are to be applied mandatorily with effect from 01-04-2017 i.e. assessment year 2017-18 onwards-Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 43CA, 145]

Abdul Hamid. v. ITO (2020) 183 ITD 711/195 DTR 321/207 TTJ 1109 (Gauhati)(Trib.)/Abdul Hannan v .ITO (2020) 183 ITD 711/195 DTR 321/207 TTJ 1109 (Gauhati) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Cash credit-Assessing the deposits as undisclosed turnover and estimating income at 4% of turnover-Only probability and likelihood to find error in assessment order is not permitted-Revision is held to be not valid-When undisclosed amount of assessee in his bank account as undisclosed business receipts/turnover provision of 115BBE would not attract. [S. 68, 115BBE]

Yogesh Mavjibhai Gala. v. PCIT (2020) 183 ITD 665/ 196 DTR 27/ 208 TTJ 872 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-Allotment letter-Holding period-From date of allotment of flat and not date of possession of flat-Revision is held to be not valid. [S .2(29A), 45, 54]

Shailesh Kumar Gandhi v. PCIT (2020) 183 ITD 567/195 DTR 259/207 TTJ 899 (Cuttack)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Commission-Without show cause notice cannot presume that incentive had not been paid-Share capital-Source of introduction of capital fully explained-Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 37(1), 68]

JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. v. DCIT (IT) (2020) 183 ITD 190/185 DTR 305/203 TTJ 443 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Branch to head office-Interest paid by Indian branch of assessee non-resident bank to its Head Office and overseas branches being a payment to self would be governed by principle of mutuality and, therefore, same could not be brought to tax as per provision of section 9(1)(v)(c)-Revision is held to be not valid-DTAA-India-USA. [S. 9(1)(v)(c), Art. 11]

Tata Education and Development Trust v. ACIT (2020) 183 ITD 883 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 254(2A) : Appellate Tribunal –Stay-Power of Tribunal to stay-Matter referred to larger Bench. [S. 254(1)]

Link Laters LLP. v. DCIT(IT) (2020) 183 ITD 156/195 DTR 140/208 TTJ 20 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection-Stay of employees in India-Issue referred to AO for verification-No mistake Apparent on record-DTAA-India-UK. [S. 9(1)(i), Art. 5(2)(k)(i)]