Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Meenakshi Ammal Trust v .ACIT (2020)78 ITR 138 / 186 DTR 257/203 TTJ 785 (Chennai) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Failure to furnish details of persons from whom donations received — Not a case of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income — Penalty not leviable . [ S. 11, 132 ]

Shugan Chandra Kothari Trust v. CIT(E) (2020)78 ITR 340 ( Delhi) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – -Fees from students -Explanation was furnished at the original assessment proceedings – Revision is held to be not valid . [ S.2(15)),12A,143(3) ]

Seth Madan Lal Palriwala Foundation v. CIT (E) (2020)78 ITR 436 / 196 DTR 169( Delhi) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Source of funds from abroad —Commissioner not conducting enquiry to find order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue — Revision not valid.

Maithan Steel and Power Ltd. v. PCIT (2020)78 ITR 532 / 208 TTJ 334(Kol) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Prior period income – Disclosure before Settlement Commission —Neither erroneous nor causing prejudice to interests of revenue – Revision is held to be not valid . [ S.43B 115JB ]

SL Lumax Ltd. v. PCIT (2020) 78 ITR 1 (SN) ( Chennai ) (Trib )

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Business expenditure – Provision for warranty – Record includes all documents available with department even for earlier years- Revision is held to be not valid. [ S .92CA(4),144C(3), 263(1b) ]

Asian Homes P. Ltd. v. PCIT (2020)78 ITR 240 (Mum) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Interest income- Business income or income from other sources – View already taken by Assessing Officer after calling for explanation and considering submission — View could not be held to be illegal or unsustainable in law — Revision is held to be not valid.

Shamken Multifab Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2020)78 ITR 214/ 190 DTR 77/180 ITD 756 /205 TTJ 696 ( Delhi) (Trib)/Dy. CIT v. Arhum Syntex (P) Ltd (2020)78 ITR 214/ 190 DTR 77/180 ITD 756 /205 TTJ 696 ( Delhi) (Trib) Dy.CIT v. Shamken Cotsyn Ltd (2020)78 ITR 214/ 190 DTR 77/180 ITD 756 /205 TTJ 696 ( Delhi) (Trib) Dy.CIT v. Shamken Spinner Ltd (2020)78 ITR 214/ 190 DTR 77/180 ITD 756 /205 TTJ 696 ( Delhi) (Trib)

S.253: Appellate Tribunal – Maintainability of appeal — Corporate debtor against whom moratorium order passed – Institution of suit against Corporate debtor prohibited — Provisions of the IBC Code over any other enactment in case of conflicting provisions, by virtue of a non-obstante clause contained in section 238 of the IBC Code- Appeal by department against assessee is not maintainable [S.268A , Insolvency And Bankruptcy Code, 2016, S. 14, 238 , ITAT, Rules 26 ]

Tariqrashid M. Munshi v. ITO (2020)78 ITR 622( Ahd) (Trib)

S. 251 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Penalty imposed for non appearance – CIT (A) is directed to decide on merits .[ S.144, 147]

Lala Bharat Lal and sons v. ITO(TDS) (2020)78 ITR 451/187 DTR 193/183 ITD 172 / 204 TTJ 393 ( Luck ) (Trib)

S. 206C : Collection at source – Trader in scrap – Waste -Not in the business of manufacturing – Not liable to deduct tax collection at source .

Agreenco Fibre Foam (P.) Ltd. v. ITO(TDS) (2020)78 ITR 358(Cochin) (Trib)

S. 201 : Deduction at source – Failure to deduct or pay –Calculation of levy of interest – Interest to be calculated from the date on which tax should have been deducted to the date on which the payee should have filed its return [ S.201(1) 201(IA) ]