Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


CIT v. Velingkar Brothers [2020] 114 taxmann.com 727 (Bom)( HC)

S. 268A : Appeal – Monetary limits – Less than Rs.1 crore – Appeal of Revenue is dismissed – Contribution to construction of new bridge – Capital of revenue .[ S.37(1), 260A ]

CIT v. Sodder Builder & Developers (P.) Ltd. [2020] 115 taxmann.com 251 (Bom)( HC)

S. 158BC : Block assessment – No assessment could be made under section 158BC without issuing a notice u/s. 143(2) .[ S.143(2), 260A ]

PCIT v. Ajit Ramakant Phatarpekar [2021] 277 Taxman 543 /[2020] 429 ITR 319 (Bom) (HC)

S. 40A(2): Expenses or payments not deductible – Excessive or unreasonable -Stacking and handling expenses – Blending and screening charges to its sister concern – Order of Tribunal deleting the disallowance is affirmed .[ S. 260A ]

Chowgule & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. JCIT [2023] 147 taxmann.com 286 (Bom)( HC)

S.147: Reassessment – After the expiry of four years – No failure to disclose material facts – Year of taxability – Mercantile system of accounting –Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection is set aside . [ S.5, 145, 148 , Art. 226 ]

Chowgule & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. JCIT [2023] 147 taxmann.com 286 (Bom)( HC)

S.147: Reassessment – After the expiry of four years – No failure to disclose material facts – Year of taxability – Mercantile system of accounting –Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection is set aside . [ S.5, 145, 148 , Art. 226 ]

Sesa Goa Ltd. v. JCIT [2020] 117 taxmann.com 96 / 423 ITR 426 (Bom) ( HC)

S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source -Non-resident – Income – Deemed to accrue or arise in India Demurrage paid – In terms of relevant sales contract – Income not accrued in India – Not liable to deduct tax at source .[ S. 5(2)(b) ,9(1)(i) ]

Meenachil Taluk Cooperative Employees Cooperative Society Ltd. CIT (Appeals)(2024) 300 Taxman 338 (Ker)(HC)

S. 249 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Condonation of delay-Form of appeal and limitation-Delay of 11 days-Non availability of tax consultant-Delay is condoned-CIT(A) is directed to decide the issue on merits. [S.80P, 246A, 250, Art. 226

CIT, Karnataka v. Mukhtar Minerals (P.) Ltd.[2021] 276 Taxman 218/ 432 ITR 152 (Bom)( HC)

S. 35E : Deduction for expenditure on prospecting etc. for certain minerals- Capital or revenue – Amount paid to mining lessees is not towards acquisition of right to mine but was towards expenditure undertaken by said lessees for purpose of developments like roads and trenches, temporary huts, drilling, etc.- Allowable as deduction. [ S. 37(1)]

PCIT v. Umah Agarwal (Smt.) (2024) 300 Taxman 493 (Karn)(HC)

S. 245D : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Procedure-Application-Unexplained investments-Search-Jewellery-Conclusion of Settlement Commission by accepting explanation in spirit of settlement could not be faulted calling for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. [S. 115BBE, 132, 245D(4), 245I, Art. 226]

CIT (Central) v. RNS Infrastructure Ltd. (2024) 300 Taxman 101 /469 ITR 29 (SC) Editorial : CIT (Central) v. RNS Infrastructure Ltd (2022) 286 Taxman 509/ 442 ITR 417 (Karn)(HC)

S. 245D : Settlement Commission-Limitation-Delay in passing order not due to assessee-Delay could be condoned-SLP of Revenue is dismissed. [S. 245D(4A), 245D(4A)(iii),245HA(1)(iv), Art. 136]