Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


ACIT v. Blackstone Capital Partners (Singapore) Vi Fdi Three Pte. Ltd (2024) 297 Taxman 223 (SC) ACIT v. Blackstone Capital Partners (Singapore) Vi Fdi Three Pte. Ltd (2024) 297 Taxman 387 (SC) Editorial : Blackstone Capital Partners (Singapore) Vi Fdi Three Pte. Ltd. v ACIT (IT) (2023)452 ITR 111/ 331 CTR 1/222 DTR 265 / 146 taxmann.com 569 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Double taxation avoidance agreements-Tax Residency Certificate granted by another country-Binding on Income-Tax Authorities in India-Notice of reassessment is not valid-DTAA-India-Singapore-Notice issued in SLP filed by the Revenue-SLP granted to the Revenue. [S. 90(2), 133(6), 148, Art. 13(4) Art. 136]

ACIT v. Adani Power Maharashtra Ltd. (2024) 297 Taxman 394 / 460 ITR 729 (SC) Editorial : Adani Power Maharashtra Ltd v. ACIT (2023) 294 Taxman 414 (Guj)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-corporate social responsibility expenses-Reopening was without application of mind-Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection is quashed-SLP of Revenue is dismissed, [S. 148, Companies Act, 2013, S. 135 Art.136]

ACIT (OSD) v. Durr India (P.) Ltd. (2024) 297 Taxman 58 (SC) Editorial : Durr India (P.) Ltd v. ACIT (2023) 152 taxmann.com 303/ 455 ITR 460 (Mad)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-No failure to disclose material facts-Reassessment is barred by limitation-SLP of Revenue is dismissed. [S. 145, 148 Art. 136]

ACIT v. Noshir Darabshaw Talati (2024) 159 taxmann.com 390/ 297 Taxman 390 (SC) Editorial : Noshir Darabshaw Talati v. ACIT (2023)459 ITR 742 /150 taxmann.com 16 (Bom)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Losses-Capital gains-Losses carried forward-No failure to disclose material facts-Notice must specify facts which had not been disclosed-Notice not valid-SLP is granted to the Revenue. [S.72, 143(3), 148, Art. 136]

Pepsico India Holdings (P.) Ltd v. NFAC (2024) 297 Taxman 76/465 ITR 622 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Draft assessment order-Once objections have been filed by assessee against a draft assessment order within time limit prescribed under section 144C(2)(b), final assessment order should have been passed by Assessing Officer post receipt of direction from DRP-Matter remanded. [Art. 226]

PAR Formulations (P.) Ltd v. NFAC(2024) 297 Taxman 401/ 466 ITR 723 (Mad)(HC)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Draft assessment order-Objections against draft assessment order were filed-Copy of objections could not be placed before Assessing Officer-Assessment order was quashed and Assessing Officer is to be directed to await decision of DRP before issuing a fresh assessment order. [Art. 226]

Google India (P.) Ltd v. NFAC (2024) 297 Taxman 26 (Mad)(HC)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Draft assessment order-Filed objections to proposed variation only with DRP and a copy of same was not marked to AO-Objections filed with DRP would result in directions to AO-AO must complete assessment in light of directions as envisaged under section 144C(13).[S.144C(13),Art. 226]

CIT v. Cisco Systems services B.V (2024) 297 Taxman 399 (SC) Editorial : CIT (IT) v. Cisco Systems services B.V. (2023) 456 ITR 50/ 293 Taxman 85/334 CTR 52 (Karn)(HC)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Draft assessment order-Passing of final order-Contrary to law-Mistake could not be cured-Notice is issued in SLP filed by the Revenue [S. 156, 292B, Art. 136]

Renaissance Global Ltd. v. NFAC (2024) 297 Taxman 80 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Principle of natural justice-Opportunity of hearing-Objections are not uploaded due to technical reasons-Order is set aside-Assessing Officer is directed to pass the order after direction from DRP.[S.144C(2), Art. 226]

CIT v. Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd. (2024) 297 Taxman 228 (SC) Editorial : CIT (IT) v. Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd. (2023) 456 ITR 34/ 293 Taxman 385 / 332 CTR 221/ 224 DTR 361 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 143(3) : Assessment-Assessment order without DIN (Document identification number) has not valid in law-Statutory defects in the assessment order cannot be cured by applying the provision of section 292B of the Act-Circular No 19 of 2019 dated 14-8-209 (2019) 416 ITR 140 (St) of CBDT is binding on the Revenue-Order of Tribunal quashing the assessment order was affirmed-On SLP, interim stay of order dated 20-3-2-2023 as well as order of the ITAT dated 19-9-2022, until further orders. [S. 144C, 147, 292B, Art. 136]