Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Eshakti.com Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2021) The Chamber’s Journal-July-P. 153 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 143(3) : Assessment-Show cause notice is mandatory-Assessing Officer is expected to crystalise the issues and issue a show cause notice setting out the issues and solicit the response of the assessee-Assessment order was set aside. [Art. 226]

Deep Industries Ltd. v. DCIT (2021) The Chamber’s Journal-December-P. 63 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 139 : Return of income-Revised return-Permitted to file revised return in an electronic mode once the direction of the NCLT was communicated. [Art. 226]

Small Industries Development Bank of India v. CBDT (2022) The Chamber’s Journal-January-P. 74. (Bom.)(HC)

S. 115-O : Domestic companies-Tax on distributed profits-Non-Obstante clause-Overriding effect-Amount distributed or paid by way of dividend falls under the category of profits under section 50 of the SIDBI Act-Not liable to pay additional tax. [SIDBI Act, S. 29(2), Unit Trust India Act, 1963, S. 32]

PCIT v. Electronics and Controls Power Systems Pvt Ltd (2021) The Chamber’s Journal-December-P. 65 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 72 : Carry forward and set off of business losses-Delayed furnishing of ITR-V-Order of Tribunal allowing the carry forward of losses was affirmed. [S. 80, 139]

Maya Ventures Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2021) The Chamber’s Journal-April-P. 99 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Estate developer-Payment made to settle the dispute to clear the title-Joint venture agreement-Tribunal has no power to rewrite the agreement-Allowable as deduction.

Antaiksh Realtors Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2021) BCAJ-December-P. 48 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limited scrutiny-Order passed by the Assessing Officer cannot be revised on an issue which was not taken up in limited scrutiny. [S. 68, 115JB, 143(2)]

Spotlight Vanijya Ltd. v. PCIT (2021) BCAJ-June-P. 27 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limited scrutiny-Order passed by the Assessing Officer cannot be revised on an issue which was not taken up in limited scrutiny. [S. 143(2)]

Naina Sarf v. PCIT (2021) BCAJ-November-P. 34 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Allotment letter prior to AY. 2014-15-Registration was on 9th December, 2014-Provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) is not applicable-Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii)]

Alfa Laval Lund AB v. CIT (2021) BCAJ-December-P. 47 (Pune) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Revision order passed on the basis of recommendation of Assessing Officer has no statutory sanction-Order is bad in law. [S. 143(3)]

Manorama Devi Jaiswal v. ITO (2021) BCAJ-December-P. 46 (Kol.) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Reference to dispute resolution panel-Order passed without complying the mandatory procedure prescribed u/s.144C is non-est-Order which is a nullity and non-est cannot be a revised. [S. 144C, Art. 14, 21]