Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Sakina Ahmedali Kantavala v. ITO [2024] 163 taxmann.com 115 (Ahd)(Trib)

S. 69A : Unexplained moneys – Demonetization – Not taxable as undisclosed income – Best judgement assessment – Order under section 144 is not valid.[S. 115BBE, 144]

Hemant Samarataji Lohar v. CIT(A) [2024] 163 taxmann.com 292 (SMC) (Mum)(Trib)

S. 69A: Unexplained moneys – Search – Cash seized during search – Explained the source of cash – Addition is deleted. [S. 132]

DCIT v. Jaymala Infrastructure P. Ltd. (Mum) (Trib) (UR)

S. 68: Cash credits – Share capital – Need not prove source of the source – Order of CIT(A) deleting the addition is affirmed. [S. 131, 133(6)]

Abdul Nayab Shaikh (Deceased) v. ITO [2024] 167 taxmann.com 381(Mum)( Trib)

S. 54F: Capital gains – Investment in a residential house – Joint names – Income has to be assessed in the right person – Indexation benefit is available. [S. 4, 45, 54]

Jt. CIT v. Suman Paper and Boards Ltd.(2024) 301 Taxman 401 / 468 ITR 106 (SC)/Jt. CIT v. Agarwal Paper Mills (P.) Ltd. (2024) 301 Taxman 231 (SC) Editorial : Suman Paper and Boards Ltd v. JCIT (2023) 453 ITR 296 (Guj)(HC)// Suman Paper & Boards Ltd v. JCIT ( 2023) 148 taxmann.com. 433/ 454 ITR 296 ( Guj)( HC)

S. 276C : Offences and prosecutions-Search cases-Failure to furnish return-Search and seizure-Block Assessment for Assessment prior to 1-1-1997-No provision for prosecution prior to that date-SLP of Revenue is dismissed. [S. 132, 158BC(a)(ii), 158BFA, 277, 278B, 278E, Art. 136]

HDFC Bank Ltd. v State of Bihar (2024)468 ITR 650 / 167 taxmann.com 600/ 301 Taxman 538 (SC) Editorial : HDFC Bank Ltd. v State of Bihar (2022) 448 ITR 103 (Pat)(HC)

S. 275A : Offences and prosecutions-Search and Seizure-Prohibitory order-Contravention-Bank Officials mistakenly reading order to extend to Locker also and permitting operation of Locker-Prosecution of Bank for offences of fraud, criminal breach of trust, misappropriation and conspiracy-Bank is a juristic person and question of Mens Rea did not arise-Nothing in first information report or complaint to show bank or its staff members had dishonestly induced someone to deliver any property to any person, and that Mens Rea existed at time of such inducement-No allegation of entrustment of property which bank had misappropriated or converted for its own use to detriment of Department-First Information Report or complaint not showing that bank and its officers acted with common intention or intentionally co-operated in commission of any alleged offences-Continuation of criminal proceedings against appellant-Bank would cause undue hardship to appellant-Bank-First information report is quashed-Prosecution against bank and its officials quashed-Order of High Court is set aside. [S. 131(IA), 132(1) 132(3), Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S. 34, 37 120B 155(2)],201, 206 217, 406, 409, 420, 462]

Add. CIT v.Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd. (2024)468 ITR 2 (SC) Editorial : Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 305 CTR 584 / (2019) 411 ITR 333 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 271G : Penalty-Documents-International transaction-Transfer pricing-Failure to furnish information or documents-Change In Law-Default occurring prior to date of amendment conferring jurisdiction on Transfer Pricing Officer to impose penalty-Transfer Pricing Officer had no jurisdiction prior to Amendment i.e on October 1, 2014-SLP of Revenue is dismissed. [S. 2(7A), 92D(3), Art. 136]

CMJ Breweries Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI (2024)468 ITR 695 (Gauhati)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Business expenditure-Prior period expenses-Revisional authority must come to a finding that order of assessment is both erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue-Writ petition against Revisional order is allowed. [S. 37(1) 143(3), Art. 226]

PCIT v. Cookson India Pvt. Ltd. (2024)468 ITR 35 (Cal)(HC)

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Transfer pricing adjustment-Assessing Officer has given effect to the order of Tribunal-No substantial question of law survived for consideration. [S.92CA, 254(1)]

Meetu Bansal v. Dy. CIT (2024)468 ITR 271/ 151 taxmann.com 524 (Uttarakhand)(HC)

S. 251 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Powers-Enhancement-Assessment cannot be enhanced without notice to assessee-Matter is remanded back to the file of CIT(A). [S. 250, 251(2)), 260A]