Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


CIT v. Tamil Nadu Newsprint & Papers Ltd. (2021) 282 Taxman 350 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Carbon credit-Business of generation of electricity-Capital receipts-Not taxable. [S. 28(i)]

Brahmos Aerospace Thiruvananthapuram Ltd. v. ACIT (2021) 438 ITR 91/ 208 DTR 185/ 323 CTR 922 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Real income-Mere receipt is not sufficient-Subsidiary of a Government Company-Money belongs to central Government-Not assessable as income. [S. 2(24)]

CIT v. N.S. Narendra (2021) 282 Taxman 198 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend-Commercial transaction-personal properties as collateral to bank borrowings-Amount received as advance for purchasing property-Not assessable as deemed dividend.

Hill Queen Investment (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2021) 189 ITD 139 (Kol.) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Purchase and sale of shares-Bogus sales-Possible view-Revision was quashed. [S. 68]

Bardoli Vibhag Gram Vikas Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd. v. PCIT (2021) 189 ITD 601 (Surat)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Co-Operative Societies-Interest from Co-operative banks-Deduction-Possible view-Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 80P(2)(d)]

Nilkanth Stone Industries v. PCIT (2021) 189 ITD 718 (Surat) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Loans and advances-Order was passed due verification-Revision was held to be not valid. [S. 69A]

Kaushikbhai P. Patel v. PCIT (2021) 88 ITR 20 (SN) (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-No expenditure claimed-Added to work in progress-No prejudice to revenue-Revision was held to be not valid. [S. 145]

Galaxy Surfactants Ltd. v. ACIT (2021) 190 ITD 741 / 88 ITR 39 (SN) / 211 TTJ 858 / 201 DTR 381 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Draft assessment order was prepared and served-It is not open to the Assessing Officer to revisit the draft assessment order-Revision is held to be valid. [S. 92C, 144C(3)]

Jitender Kumar Gupta (HUF) v. ACIT (2021) 189 ITD 714 (Hyd.) (Trib.)

S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Information from Investigation wing-Bogus long term and Short term capital gains-Reasons for reopening was not supplied-Directed to supply reasons for reopening-Directed to pass in accordance with law-Matter remanded. [S. 69B, 147]

Satish Kumar Khandelwal v. ITO (2021) 189 ITD 118 / 213 TTJ 584/ 206 DTR 289 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-Recorded reasons-Return filed regularly-Recorded reasons without application of mind-Reassessment was quashed. [S. 139, 148]