Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Dy. CIT v. Futurz Next Services P. Ltd. (2020) 80 ITR 58( Delhi ) (Trib)

S. 2(22)(e):Dividend – Deemed dividend- Trading transactions – Cannot be assessed as deemed dividend .

UOI v. Infopark Kerala (2017) 154 DTR 99/ 247 Taxman 219/ 297 CTR 219 (SC) CIT v. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (2017) 154 DTR 99/ 247 Taxman 219/ 297 CTR 219 (SC) Editorial:Decision of Kerala High Court in Info Park Kerala v. ACIT (2008) 4 KLT 782 ( 2017) 391 ITR 178 overruled

S. 10(37): Capital gains – Agricultural land – Deduction at source – Acquisition of immoveable property – Payment of compensation on agreed terms in respect of the land acquired is entitled for exemption. [S.148 ,194LA, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.6]

UOI v. Infopark Kerala (2017) 154 DTR 99/ 247 Taxman 219/ 297 CTR 219 (SC)

S. 10(37): Capital gains – Agricultural land – Deduction at source – Acquisition of immoveable property – Payment of compensation on agreed terms in respect of the land acquired is entitled for exemption. [S.148 ,194LA, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.6]

CWT v. Estate of HMM Vikramsinhji of Gondal (2014) 363 ITR 679 / 225 Taxman 166/268 CTR 232/ 103 DTR 211 (SC)

S. 5: Scope of total Income – Accrual of income of discretionary trust – Income retained by the trustee cannot be brought tax in the assessment of beneficiary. [Wealth-tax Act, 1957, S.3]

CIT v. (Smt.) Sandhya Rani Dutta (2001) 248 ITR 201 / 115 Taxman 369 /166 CTR 208 (SC)

S. 4: Charge of income tax – Hindu undivided family – Inheritance – Hindu undivided family ceases to exist without male presence – Inherited property taxable in individual hands.

CIT v. Sitaldas Tirthaldas (1961) 41 ITR 367 (SC)

S.4: Charge of income-tax – Diversion of income by overriding title or application of Income. [ Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, S.3 ]

Arjun Dada Kharate v . Dy.CIT (2020)81 ITR 68 (SN) (Pune) (Trib) Bhima Dada Kharate v Dy. CIT (2020)81 ITR 68 (SN) (Pune) (Trib)

S. 271F : Penalty – Return of income – Failure to furnish – Agriculturist – Bonafide belief that income not chargeable to tax – Levy of penalty is held to be not justified [ S. 139(1) 273B ]

Sarla Mundra (Smt.) v .Dy. CIT (2020 81 ITR 65 (SN) (Jaipur) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Initiation of penalty proceedings on both charges – Penalty levied on a specific charge of concealing particulars of income —Levy of penalty is held to be justified. [ Explanation 5A ]

Ravindra Anant Bhuskute v ITO (2020)81 ITR 40 (SN) (Pune ) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Capital gains- Bonafide belief – Sale not complete – Failure to disclose capital gains- Levy of penalty is held to be not justified .[ S.45 ]

Surekha Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v PCIT (2020)81 ITR 24 (SN( Ctk) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –
Revision —Housing project —Method of accounting – Adopting Percentage Completion Method And Project- Revision is held to be not valid . [S. 145 ]