Home › Archive for Income-Tax Act › Page 1248
Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


CIT v .City Lubricants Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 428 ITR 109/ 195 DTR 457 (Mad) (HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment –With in four years- Capital gains – Advance received for transfer of capital asset – Reassessment is held to be not valid- Joint development agreement – The amount has not accrued – Addition could not be made even on merit . [ S. 2(47) (v), 45, 56 , 148 ]

State Bank of India v. Vineet Agrawal, ACIT (2020) 428 ITR 519 / 317 CTR 388/ 195 DTR 81 (Bom) )(HC)

S.147: Reassessment- After the expiry of four years- No failure to disclose material facts- Notice to withdrawal of exemption is held to be not valid . [ S.10(15) (iv), S.148 ,154,Art , 226 ]

Madurai Power Corporation Private Limited v Dy. CIT (2020) 428 ITR 117 (AP) (HC)

S.147: Reassessment- After the expiry of four years- No failure to furnish material facts necessary for assessment — Purchase and sale of shares- Audit objection – Reply by the Assessing Officer to drop the proceedings- Notice is held to be not valid [ S. 56 (2) (vii) (a),148 ]

Court held that though the assessment order as such was silent on this aspect of gift of shares , the communications between the assessee and the Assessing Officer would clearly demonstrate that the assessee had disclosed all the primary facts regarding transfer of shares to E without any consideration and as a gift. In any case, it was a scrutiny assessment. It was clearly discernible that the basis for reopening the assessment were two letters of the Departmental authorities. While initially the contention of the assessee that such transfer of shares was a gift without consideration was accepted, subsequently the view was revised to treat the transfer of shares not as a gift and to tax the transaction on the market value of the shares. This was nothing but a change of opinion. Now it was not open to the Assessing Officer to take a second view on the same set of facts treating the earlier view as erroneous. The notice of reassessment after four years was not valid.( AY.2012-13)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years- No failure to disclose material facts necessary for Assessment — Transfer of shares as gift – Change of opinion — Notice not valid [ S.45, 47, 148 ]

CIT v. Voltech Projects Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 428 ITR 270 (Mad) (HC)

S.145: Method of accounting -Mercantile system of accounting—Accrual of income -Retention money on contract —Cannot be included income .[ S.4 , 5 ]

Hyundai Motor India Ltd. v. Secretary, Income-Tax Department (2020) 428 ITR 545/ 195 DTR 26/ (2021) 276 Taxman 453 317 CTR 603 /0 (Mad) (HC)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel – Transfer pricing – Arm’s length price – Direction By Dispute Resolution Panel – Writ is not maintainable [ S.92C, Art. 136, 226 ]

Parappurathu Varghese Mathai and Sarakutty Mathai v. PCIT (2020) 428 ITR 79/ 193 DTR 337/ 316 CTR 833 (Bom) (HC) Olive Builders v. PCIT (2020) 428 ITR 79/ 193 DTR 337/ 316 CTR 833 (Bom) (HC)

S. 127 : Power to transfer cases – Transfer from Assessing Officer- Agreement between two higher authorities — Opportunity of hearing should be given . [ Art. 226 ]

Best Trading and Agencies Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2020) 428 ITR 52 / 275 Taxman 550 ( 2021 ) 203 DTR 269/ 321 CTR 373 (Karn)(HC)

S. 115JB : Book profit – Capital gains —Indexed cost of acquisition to be considered [ S.45 , 48 ]

Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2020) 428 ITR 273/ ( 2021 ) 199 DTR 228/ 320 CTR 543 (Mad) (HC)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arm’s length price –Comparable uncontrolled price method or the transactional net margin method- Question of fact- Commission – Finding of fact . [ S.37(1) , 254(1) 260A ]

PCIT v . Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt. Limited (2020) 428 ITR 322/ ( 2021 ) 199 DTR 223/ 319 CTR 700/ 278 Taxman 89 (Karn)(HC)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arm’s length price – Instruction of CBDT is binding on revenue -Instruction No .3 of 2003 ( 2003 ) ( 261 ITR 51 (St) [ S.92CA ]