Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


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) ]

Dy. CIT v. Madhyam Housing Pvt. Ltd. (2020)78 ITR 296 ( Delhi) (Trib)

S. 153A : Assessment – Search-No incriminating material found during search — Assessment completed on date of search cannot be disturbed — Assessment not valid.[ S.132]

Nigam Computers Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2020) 78 ITR 384 ( Delhi) (Trib)

S.147: Reassessment — Accommodation entry -Information from Director of Income-Tax- No application of mind or independent inquiry or link between any tangible material- Reassessment not valid.[ S.148 ]

Bull Riders Financial Services (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2020)78 ITR 688 / 195 DTR 404/207 TTJ 573 (Delhi) (Trib)

S.147: Reassessment — Accommodation entry -Information from Director of Income-Tax- No application of mind or independent inquiry or link between any tangible material- Reassessment not valid.[ S.148 ]

ITO v. Krish Homes Pvt Ltd (2020)78 ITR 101/ 186 DTR 177/203 TTJ 909 ( Jaipur) (Trib)

S. 147 : Reassessment –With in four years- Change of opinion- Sale of agricultural land available on record at time of original assessment — Book profit – Agricultural Land — Gains on sale of agricultural land not deductible- Reassessment is held to be not valid [ S. 2(14((iii) , 115JB ,148 ]