Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


V. S. Unnikrishnan v. ITO (IIT ) (2021) 86 ITR 11 (SN)/ 198 DTR 73/ 209 TTJ 681 (Mum)(Trib). www.itatonline.org

S. 17(2:PERQUISITE – ESOP BENEFITS GRANTED TO AN ASSESSEE WHEN HE WAS RESIDENT AND IN CONSIDERATION FOR SERVICES RENDERED IN INDIA IS TAXABLE EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE IS A NON-RESIDENT IN THE YEAR OF EXERCISE- DTAA -INDIA – UAE [ S.15 , ART .15 ]

PCIT(C)-3 V. ANAND KUMAR JAIN (HUF) (DELHI)(HC), WWW.ITATONLINE.ORG

S. 153A : Assessment – Search-Assessment on the basis of alleged incriminating material (being the statement recorded under 132(4) of the Act) is not valid. The Assessee also had no opportunity to cross-examine the said witness [ S. 132 , 153C ]

Shiv Bhagwan Gupta v. ACIT (Pat ) (Trib) www.itatonline.org

S. 271AAB : Penalty – Search -Undisclosed income –Levy of penalty not mandatory – Opportunity of hearing must be given – No assessment required for initiation of penalty- Since, the assessee has neither made any surrender of any undisclosed income during the search action nor the penalty has been initiated on the basis of undisclosed income found during such search action, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed- Levy of penalty deleted [ S. 132 ]

Bank of India v. ACIT ( 2021 ) 201 DTR 1 / 210 TTJ 649 ( Mum) (Trib) www.itatonline .org

S. 90: Foreign tax Credit – Not allowed as refund – Deduction of taxes paid – Allowed in computation -DTAA- [S. 28(1), 37(1), 91; Art, 24]

Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence P .Ltd v. CIT ( 2021) 432 ITR 471/199 DTR 361/ 319 CTR 497 / 125 taxmann.com 42 ( SC) www.itatonline .org / Citrix Systems Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd v. DIT CIT ( 2021) 432 ITR 471/199 DTR 361/ 319 CTR 497 / 125 taxmann.com 42 ( SC)/DIT v. Ericsson A.B . ( 2021) 432 ITR 471/199 DTR 361/ 319 CTR 497 / 125 taxmann.com 42 ( SC) www.itatonline .org Editorial: CIT v. Alcatel Lucent Canada ( 2015 ) 372 TR 476 ( Delhi) (HC) affirmed , CIT v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd ( 2012 ) 345 ITR 494 ( Karn) (HC) CIT v. Sunray Computers P.Ltd ( 2012 ) 348 ITR 196 ( Karn) (HC) , AAR in Citrix Systems Asia Pacific Pty Ltd , Inn re ( 2012 ) 343 ITR 1 (AAR ) reversed .

S. 195 :Deduction at source – Non-resident – Other sums – Amount received for supply of software – Not liable to deduct tax at source
DTAA -India [ Art , 12 , 9 (1)(vi), Art, 12 ]

CIT v. Patdi Commercial and Investment Ltd. (2020) 420 ITR 308 / 187 DTR 35 (Guj) (HC)

S. 271AAA : Penalty – Search initiated on or after 1st June, 2007 – Undisclosed income and specifies manner in which such income derived- Failure of the raiding party to elicit a response from assessee regarding manner of deriving income- Deletion of penalty by the Tribunal is held to be valid . [ S.132 (4) , 271AAA(2) ]

CIT v. Tudor India P. Ltd. (2020) 420 ITR 399/ 189 DTR 329/ 314 CTR 787 (Guj) (HC)

S. 92CA :Reference to transfer pricing officer -International Transactions — Transactions with Associated Enterprises —Arm’s Length Price — Management fees- Order of Tribunal is affirmed .[ S.92C, 260A ]

Gayatri Enterprise. v. ITO (2020) 420 ITR 15 / 192 DTR 192/ 271 Taxman 276 (Guj) (HC)

S. 69 :Unexplained investments – Capital gains- Sale of property – Stamp valuation-Legal fiction cannot be invoked to make addition – Merely on the basis of stamp valuation addition cannot be made .[ S.45 , 50C , 69B ,263 . ]

Sadruddin Tejani v. ITO ( 2021 ) 434 ITR 474 / 320 CTR 121 / 200 DTR 353 (Bom) (HC) www.itatonline .org

The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.

S.4: Filing of declaration and particulars to be furnished -Settlement of Disputes — The Designated Authority cannot reject the declaration filed under section 4(1) of the DTVSV Act, when the declarant’s case does not fall under section 4(6) and in any of the disqualifications mentioned in section 9 of the said Act. [S. 4(1), 4(6) ,9, ITAct , S. 264 , Art , 226 ]

Quippo Telecom Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 185 ITD 275 / (2021) 198 DTR 202 / 2009 TTJ 828 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Disallowance of professional fees and interest on borrowed capital-Levy of concealment penalty is held to be not valid. [S. 36(1)(iii), 37 (1)]