Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC)

S.4: Charge of income-tax – Cash credits- Assessee must prove the source of receipt -In the absence of such proof the Assessing Officer is entitled to treat it as taxable income – Cash credits could be assessed as undisclosed income [ S. 147, Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, S.34 ]

Harshad Shantilal Mehta v. Custodian (1998) 231 ITR 871/99 Taxman 216 (SC)/ (1998) 5 SCC 1

S. 2(43): Tax – Interest and penalty is not tax [Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992, S. 3, 4, 11]

CIT v. Rameshwarlal Sanwarmal (1980) 122 ITR 1/14 CTR 372 (SC)

S.2(22)(e): Deemed dividend – Share holder means a registered share holder and not beneficial owner [Indian Income -tax Act ,1922 , S .2(6A)]

Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. UOI (2017) 394 ITR 220 / 245 Taxman 214 (SC)/ (2018) 9 SCC 382

S. 2(12A): Books of account – Entries in loose papers/ sheets are irrelevant and inadmissible as evidence- Offences and prosecution- Settlement Commission- Investigation could not have been directed in case of high public functionaries on basis of legally inadmissible evidence in form of loose papers [S. 69A, 132, 143(3), 245D; Constitution of India 1949, Art. 32; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S.155(2), 156(1); Indian Evidence Act, 1872, S.34]

CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy (1957) 32 ITR 466 (SC)

S. 2(1A) : Agricultural income – Agriculture – cultivation of land – tilling of land, sowing of seeds etc – Certain other operations which are performed after produce sprouts from land , can also be regarded as agricultural operations- However spontaneous growth not involving any human labour or skill upon land are not products of agriculture – Income derived therefrom is not agricultural income . [ S. 10(1) , Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, S. 2(1) 4(3)(viii)].

Sushil Kumar Bhati v. ITO (2020) 81 ITR 218 ( Delhi ) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Employee Stock ownership Plan- Tax was deducted at source- Mistake of tax consultant – No intention to conceal income or deliberate default on part of assessee – Levy of penalty is not justified .

Gurusamy Ramamurthy v .ITO (2020) 81 ITR 9 ( Chennai ) (Trib)

S.271(1)(c): Penalty — Concealment – Not recording of satisfaction -Penalty is held to be not valid .

Vinod Bhandari v. PCIT (2020) 81 ITR 237/ ( 2021 )) 214 TTJ 157 (Indore) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Advancing loans on hundi– Cash credits – Books of account not rejected – Assessing officer has passed a detailed order while dealing and adjudicating the issues – Revision order is quashed .[ S. 68 ,143(3)

Arvind Metals and Minerals P. Ltd. v ACIT (2020) 81 ITR 648 (Kol) (Trib)

S.254(1) Appellate Tribunal – Pronouncement of orders — Extraordinary situation In Light of Covid-19 Pandemic and lockdown — Period of Lockdown days to be excluded .

ABC Exports v. ACIT (2020) 81 ITR 99 (Trib)(Jaipur)

S. 246A : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Appealable orders –
Order giving effect to order of High Court not containing decision on any issue or computation of income — Not appealable —Period from which interest has to be calculated on outstanding demand — Appealable order. [ S. 80HHC ,80IB , 154 , 220 (2) , 234D ,244A,246 ]