Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


CIT, LTU v. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (2021) 283 Taxman 549 (Bom.) (HC) CIT, LTU v. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (2021) 283 Taxman 549 (Bom.) (HC).Editorial: SLP of Revenue dismissed , CIT v. LTU v. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (2022) 287 Taxman 218/ 114 CCH 49 (SC)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Book profit – Decommissioning levy, interest on decommissioning fund, interest on R & M fund and interest on R & D fund to profit as per profit and loss account – Revision was held to be not justified when in order passed by Commissioner, there was no mention as to under which category of Explanations (a) to (k) of section 115JB(2) these four items would fall- Order of Tribunal quashing the revision order was affirmed [ S. 115JB , 143(3) ]

CIT (TDS ) v. Super Religare Laboratories Ltd (2021 ) 133 taxmann.com 313/ 323 CTR 757/ 208 DTR 21 /(2022) 284 Taxman 657 ( Bom) (HC).Editorial : Notice issued in SLP filed by the Revenue , CIT v. Super Religare Laboratories Ltd. (2022) 287 Taxman 561 / 288 Taxman 639 (SC)

S. 194H : Deduction at source – Commission or brokerage –No principle agency relation ship -Laboratory and testing services – laboratory and testing services to customers through its own and through third party collection centres- Not liable to deduct tax at source . [ S. 201 (1), 201(1A) ]

CIT v. SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. (2021)439 ITR 566/ ( 2022) 285 Taxman 322 (Bom)(HC)

S. 194D : Deduction at source – Insurance commission – Insurance Agent – Survey – Foreign travel expenses – Expenses were paid directly to service provided – No amount was paid to the agents – Not liable to deduct tax at source – Order of Tribunal is affirmed [ S. 133A, 194J, 201(1), 201(IA) ]

Sainath Rajkumar Sarode v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 283 Taxman 494 (Bom.) (HC)

S. 194A : Deduction at source – Interest other than interest on securities – Builder –Judgement debt – Compensatory interest failure to hand over possession of flat – TDS was not liable to be deducted. [ S. 2(28A) , Real Estate ( Regulation & Development ) Act 2016 (RERA ) Art , 226 ]

Alok Knit Exports Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2021) 283 Taxman 221 /(2022) 446 ITR 748/ 213 DTR 74(Bom.) (HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment –Merger – Notice issued in the name of entity which had ceased to exist – Fundamental error – Which cannot be corrected under section 292B of the Act [ S. 147 , 292B , Art , 226 ]

John Sebastian Zezito Lobo v. ACIT (2021)439 ITR 537 / 283 Taxman 229 ( Panji Bench ) (Bom) (HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment –With in four years- Jurisdictional issue – Capital gains –Large deduction of expenses – Exemption claimed – Prima facie showing escapement of income – Notice of reassessment is held to be valid – Writ is held to be not maintainable [ S. 45, 54F , 143(1), 148 , Art , 226 ]

PCIT v . EPC Industries Ltd. (2021)439 ITR 210 (Bom) (HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment –With in four years- Waiver of loan – Change of opinion- Query raised during regular assessment proceedings – Order of Tribunal affirmed – No question of law [ S. 28(iv), 41 (1)) 148]

Nirupa Udhav Pawar (Smt) . v. ACIT (2021)439 ITR 541 ( Panji Bench ) (Bom) (HC)

S.147: Reassessment – After the expiry of four years – Capital gains – Sale of property – No failure to disclose material facts – Validity of notice to be examined on the basis of reasons recorded wile issuing the notice – The notice cannot be justified by filing affidavit or by oral submissions – Notice was held to be not valid [ S. 45, 148 , Art , 226 ]

Kalpataru Limited v .Dy. CIT (2021)439 ITR 284 /(2022) 213 DTR 25/ 326 CTR 284 (Bom) (HC)

S.147: Reassessment – After the expiry of four years – Duty of assessee only to disclose facts and not to draw inferences – Notice has to state which facts not disclosed – Change of opinion -Notice was quashed [ S. 80IB(10) , 148 , Art , 226 ]

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v .Dy. CIT (2021)439 ITR 333/(2022) 284 Taxman 252 / 212 DTR 323/ 326 CTR 325 (Bom) (HC)

S.147: Reassessment – After the expiry of four years – Loss disclosed and allowed in original assessment – No failure to disclose material facts – Notice to withdrawal of loss allowed – Held to be not valid [ S. 143(3), 148 , Art , 226 ]