Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Vinay Ramchandra Somani v. ACIT ( Mum) ( Trib) Shrilekha Vinay Somani (Smt) v .ACIT ( Mum) ( Trib)

S. 54F: Capital gains- Investment in a residential house – Sale of land -Allotment of flat as per an escrow document -Denial by builder – Assessing Officer taxing the value of flat as deemed consideration and denying the exemption – Since Assessee has performed his part of duty by disclosing the sale prior to its receipt , then it is deemed on the part of the AO to allow deduction on the same , despite the Dispute or delay in getting the flat – Entitle to exemption [ S. 45 , 133 (6) ]

Dy.CIT v. Pepsi Foods Ltd. (2021) 433 ITR 295 / 200 DTR 185 / 320 CTR 1/ 282 Taxman 10 (SC)

Interpretation of Taxing statutes-Legislative powers-Challenges Discrimination or arbitrariness can be substantial or procedural-Such policy can be struck down. [Art. 14, S. 254(2A)]

Confident Projects (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Income Tax Department, Bengaluru, (2021) 433 ITR 147 / 279 Taxman 46/202 DTR 411/ 321 CTR 169 (Karn.)(HC).Editorial: SLP of revenue dismissed , Income Tax Department, Income Tax Department v. Confident Projects (India) (P.) Ltd ( 2022) 443 ITR 5 (St)(SC)//(2022) 286 Taxman 224(SC)

S. 276C : Offences and prosecutions-Wilful attempt to evade tax-False statement-Assessee had been forced to upload returns by mentioning that entire amount of tax as otherwise returns would not have been accepted by software system-It could not be said to be misstatement-Delayed payment of tax would not amount to evasion of tax-All directors of Company cannot be automatically prosecuted for any violation of Income-tax Act-Held, yes-Whether there has to be specific allegations made against each of Directors who is intended to be prosecuted-At time of taking cognizance of an offence and issuance of process, Court taking cognizance is required to pass a sufficiently detailed order to support conclusion to take cognizance and issue process-The income-tax Department was directed to consider the provisions of a facility in its software to upload income-tax returns with actual amount paid and for the system to accept the returns even though the complete amounts had not been paid. [S. 277, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S. 191, 202(2), 292]

Nikeshkumar Bhupendrabhai Shah v. UOI (2021) 433 ITR 7 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Alternative remedy-Writ will not lie. [S. 68, 144, 246A, Art. 226]

PCIT v. New Era Sova Mine (2021) 433 ITR 249 (Panji) (Bom.)(HC) PCIT v. New Ear Vaglar Mine (2021) 433 ITR 249 (Panji) (Bom.)(HC) PCIT v. New Era Keli Mine (2021) 433 ITR 249 (Panji) (Bom.)(HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Not striking off the irrelevant limb-Penalty is held to be bad in law. [S. 274]

PCIT v. Goa Dourado Promotions Pvt. Ltd . [2020] 113 taxmann.com 630 /(2021) 433 ITR 268 (Panji) (Bom.)(HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Not striking off the irrelevant limb-Levy of penalty is held to be bad in law. [S. 274].

PCIT v. HCL Comnet Systems & Services Ltd. (2021) 433 ITR 251 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Foreign Fluctuation loss-Allowed as deduction-Arguments not taken in appeal cannot be agitated. [S. 37 (1)]

POS Hyundai Steel Manufacturing (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2021) 435 ITR 44/ 320 CTR 241 / 200 DTR 217 / 125 taxmann.com 383 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Jurisdiction issue was not raised before lower Authorities-Cannot be raised first time before High Court-Only if the finding of fact of the tribunal is perverse can the question of correctness of the order in appeal arise. [S. 92(4), 260A]

Dy.CIT v. Pepsi Foods Ltd. (2021) 433 ITR 295 / 200 DTR 185 / 320 CTR 1 (SC) Editorial : Decisions in Pepsi Foods Ltd v. ACIT (2015) 376 ITR 87 (Delhi) (HC) and ITO v. Ail Girishbhai Darji (2017) 10 ITR-OL 434 (Guj) (HC) affirmed. Dy. CIT (TDS) v. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd (2015) 376 ITR 23 (Guj) (HC) impliedly approved, CIT v. Maruti Suzuki (India) Ltd (2014) 362 ITR 215 (Delhi) (HC) impliedly disapproved.

S. 254(2A) : Appellate Tribunal-Stay-Provision for automatic vacation of stay on completion of 365 days, whether or not assessee responsible for delay in hearing appeal-Discriminatory and arbitrary-Proviso to be read to provide for vacation of stay on expiry of periods in question only where delay attributable to assessee-The expression “permissible” policy of taxation would refer to a policy that is constitutionally permissible. If the policy is itself arbitrary and discriminatory, such policy will have to be struck down. [Art. 14, 226]

Coffeeday Global Ltd. v. Add.CIT (2021) 433 ITR 321 / 202 DTR 217 / 322 CTR 336(Karn.)(HC) PCIT v. Amalgamated Bean Coffee Trading Co. Ltd. (2021) 433 ITR 321 / 202 DTR 217/ 322 CTR 336 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Tribunal has the power to rectify errors in its order. [S. 36 (1)(iii)]