Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Janodaya Trust v. A CIT (E) (2021) 86 ITR 1 (SN)(Bang) (Trib)

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes – Microfinance to self help groups – No profit motive – Denial of exemption is not justified [ S. 2(15), 12A ]

Dy.CIT (E) v. Punjab Medical Foundation Charitable Trust (2021)86 ITR 495 (Chd) (Trib)

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes – Hospital – Closer of loss making unit – Rule of consistency applied – Entitle to exemption and registration.[2(15),11(1),11(4A),12AA,13(1)(c),13(3)]

ACIT (E) v. India Habitat Centre (2021) 86 ITR 290 (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes – Principle of consistency- No change in the nature of activities – Denial of exemption is not justified- Once the activities of the assessee-society were charitable, the principle of mutuality became superfluous. [ S. 2(15), 12, 12A, 13 ]

Loxim Industries Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (OSD) (2021) 86 ITR 5 (Trib) (SN)(Ahd) (Trib)

S. 10A : Free trade zone- Deduction of profits of business of eligible undertaking to be made independently before giving effect to provisions for set off and carry forward. [ S.10B ,70, 72, 74 ]

Gurudwara Kalgidhar Singh Sabha v. ITO(E) (2021)86 ITR 46 (SN)(Delhi) (Trib)

S. 10 (23C): Educational institution-Approval from prescribed authority mandatory —Not entitled to exemption [ S. 10 (23C)(v)]

Vinay Autoparts P. Ltd. v. ITO (2020) 187 DTR 398 (Mad) (HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment –Failure to file form No 29B -Return filed on the advice of Chartered Accountant – Levy of penalty is held to be not justified .[ S.115JB ]

CIT v. ITSC (2020) 195 DTR 41 / 317 CTR 579 (Pat.) (HC)

S. 245I : Settlement Commission – Order – Conclusive -Income decalred was more than 100 times of returned income – Petition was accepted – Writ petition was filed by the recenue for reopeing of the order passed – Dismissing the petition the Court held that as a policy matter, Revenue is not to prolong litigations but bring finality, particularly when amount of Revenue involved is not more than two crores [S.245D(4), Art ,226 ]

CIT v. ITSC (2020) 188 DTR 244 / 316 CTR 796 (Mad) (HC)

S. 245D : Settlement Commission -Failure of revenue to communicate ex-parte order of stay – Order passed by the Settlement Commission admitting the petition Directed to pass final order with in – Writ petition of revenue was dismissed. [ S.245AB , 245C ,245D(2C() Art , 226 ]

Jay kumar Singh v. PCIT (2020) 187 DTR 283 / 313 CTR 609 (MP )(HC)

S. 245D : Settlement Commission –Limitation Application filed by the assessee is barred by limitation – Writ petition dismissed .[ S.245D(4), 245D(6B), Art, 226 ]

Tata Telle Services Ltd v. PCT (2020) 196 DTR 145 / 317 CTR 841 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 226 : Collection and recovery – Stay -Penalty demand – Collected more than 20% of penalty in dispute – Revenue is directed to refund the excess of 20% collected by the revenue [ Art .226 ]