Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


PCIT v. Bajargan Traders [2017] 86 taxmann.com 295 / (2024) 466 ITR 397 (Raj)(HC)

S. 145 : Method of accounting-Survey-Excess-stock-Surrender-Reflected in sales and closing stock-Accounting treatment is held to be proper-Investment in excess stocks to be taxed as part of business income and not as income from other sources. Proper-Accrual-Notional interest-Lower interest charged from wife of one of partners-Commercial expediency-Notional addition is not justified-Partners were paid interest at 12 Per Cent. and balance in partners’ account much more than amount advanced to wife of partner-Disallowance is to be restricted at 2 Per Cent.[S. 4, 5,,28(i), 69, 133A]

Ayodhya Rami Reddy v.PCIT (2024)466 ITR 497 / 339 CTR 497 /163 taxmann.com 277 (Telangana)(HC) Oxford Ayyappa Consulting Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2024)466 ITR 497 / 339 CTR 497 /163 taxmann.com 277 (Telangana)(HC)

S. 144BA : Reference to Principal Commissioner or Commissioner in certain cases-Avoidance of tax-Applicability of Chapter X-A-Multiple share transactions indicating intention to avoid tax-Burden of proof on assessee to prove contrary —Evidence that share transactions not qualifying as permissible under tax laws-Chapter X-A is applicable. [S. 95 to 102, Art. 226]

Sitaram Shyam Sundar Fashions Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI (2024)466 ITR 231/300 Taxman 142 (Cal)(HC)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Principle of natural justice-Alternative remedy-Assessment order is set aside. [143(3), 144B(6)(viii), Art. 226]

Monika Jaiswal v. UOI (2024)466 ITR 488/300 taxman 206 (Cal)(HC)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Proposed variation in income-Standard operating procedure-Order shall not be passed prior to expiry of seven days from date of issuance of show-cause-Violation of principles of natural justice-Assessment order and consequential notices of demand and penalty set aside-Matter remanded. [142(1), 143(3), 144B(6)(vii), 156, 272A(1)(d), 274, Art.226]

Inox Wind Energy Ltd. v. ACIT (2024)466 ITR 463 (Guj)(HC)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Circulars and instructions of Central Board Of Direct Taxes-Notice must be given for proposed additions along with necessary evidence.[S.119, 144B(8) Art. 226]

Raj Sheela Growth Fund Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2024) 466 ITR 26/165 taxmann.com 182/ 340 CTR 113 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 127 : Power to transfer cases-Centralisation of assessment-Once case is centralised transfer of case without decentralisation order or transfer order is contrary to provision-Transfer of case is invalid-Transferee Assessing Officer has no inherent jurisdiction to pass assessment orders making additions to income-Assessment orders and orders of Tribunal is set aside-Liberty Given To Proceed In Accordance With Law Through Jurisdictional Assessing Officer-Interpretation of taxing statute-Machinery Provision.[S. 56(2)(viia), 120, 124, 127(2), Art. 226]

Oneness Educational and Charitable Trust v. CIT (E) (2024)466 ITR 654 / 338 CTR 733/161 taxmann.com 544 (Orissa)(HC)

S. 119 : Central Board of Direct Taxes-Circular-Charitable purpose-Revised return of income-Delay-Condonation of delay-Genuine hardship-Bona fide reasons to be understood in context of circumstances-Application for condonation of delay was allowed. [S. 2(15), 11(1),119(2(b), 139(5), Art. 226]

CIT v. World Wide Stone (2024)466 ITR 748 (Raj)(HC)

S. 80IB : Industrial undertakings-Manufacture or production of Article or thing-Cutting and polishing of blocks mined into tiles-Manufacturing activity —Entitle to deduction. [S. 260A]

PCIT v. Verizon Communications India Pvt. Ltd. (2024)466 ITR 707 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 80IA : Industrial undertakings-Enterprises engaged in infrastructure development-Telecommunications Services-Expansion of business by acquiring international and national long distance licences-Entitled to deduction. [S.80IA(4)(ii)]

PCIT v. Pankaj K. Choudhary (2024)466 ITR 348 (Guj)(HC)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchases-Accommodation entries-Restriction of disallowance to 12.5 Per Cent.by Commissioner (Appeals) reduced to Six Per Cent. by Tribunal-Order of Tribunal is affirmed-No substantial question of law.[S. 260A]