Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. v. PCIT (2020) 79 ITR 636 (Delhi) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Limitation -Reassessment – Issue subject of revision pertaining to original assessment – Original assessment passed on 16-1 2014 – Revision order on 26- 2 -2019 – Revision is barred by limitation , revision could have been taken up to 31 -3 -2016 [ S. 80IA ,80IB 143(3), 147 , 148, 263(2) ]

Arihant Technology P. Ltd. v PCIT (2020)79 ITR 119 ( Delhi) ( Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Accommodation entry -Principal Commissioner not agreeing with manner of enquiry conducted by Assessing Officer — PCIT cannot substitute his own reasons- Revision is held to be not valid [ S.143(3) ]

Dy. CIT v. Phoenix Lamps Ltd. (2020) 79 ITR 276 (Delhi) (Trib)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal – Duties- Remand proceedings – Claim accepted by the Assessing Officer – Deletion of addition by the CIT (A) is held to be justified [ S.250, 253 ]

Digjam Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 79 ITR 263/ 193 DTR 237/206 TTJ 734 (Rajkot) (Trib)

S. 246A : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Appealable orders – Revision – When appeal was pending revision application was filed – Revision is held to be not valid – Cost of Rs 40000 was imposed upon assessee- CIT(A) is directed to decide the matter on merits [ S. 249, 264 ]

Fis Solutions (India) P. Ltd. v Dy. CIT (2020) 79 ITR 656 (Pune) (Trib)

S. 244A : Refund – Interest on refunds -Intimation — Assessable in year granted — If interest adjusted with prior tax liability of earlier years and paid to Government account — No need of separate intimation.

Oswal Computers and Amp Consultants Pvt. Ltd v. ITO (TDS) (2020) 79 ITR 426 (Indore) (Trib) Keshav Industries Pvt. Ltd v. ITO (TDS) (2020) 79 ITR 426 (Indore) (Trib) Padmavati Retail India Pvt. Ltd. v ITO (TDS) (2020) 79 ITR 426 (Indore) (Trib)

S.234E: Fee-Default in furnishing the statements- Deduction of tax at source —Amendment enabling levy of late fee for default in furnishing statement brought in with effect from 1-6-2015 — Prospective in nature — Levy of late fees while processing statement of tax deducted at source before amendment — Not sustainable.[ S.200A ]

Bhagwant Merchants P. Ltd. v. ITO (2020)79 ITR 595 ( Kol) (Trib)

S.147: Reassessment —Wrong facts and figures- Non-application of mind —Reassessment is held to be not valid [ S. 68, 148 ]

Bajaj Parivahan P. Ltd. v ITO (2020) 79 ITR 705 ( Kol) (Trib)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years- Cash credits – All material facts were disclosed in the original assessment proceedings -Reassessment is held to be not valid [ S.68 , 148, 194A ]

Dy. CIT v. Varun Beverages Ltd. (2020) 79 ITR 133 ( Delhi) (Trib)

S. 145 : Method of accounting – Fall in net profit rate -No specific defects pointed out in the books of account – Remand report – Addition of higher rate of profit is held to be not justified .

Extentia Information Technology Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2020)79 ITR 364/184 ITD 549/ 195 DTR 369/ 208 TTJ 210 (Pune) (Trib)

S. 92CA :Reference to transfer pricing officer – Transfer pricing – Specified domestic transaction — Unreported transaction — No power to determine arm’s length price without approval from principal commissioner or making reference to him [ S.92C ]