Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Progress Rail Locomotive Inc. v. Dy. CIT (IT) (2024)466 ITR 76 / 339 CTR 129/163 taxmann.com 52(Delhi)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Non-Resident-Permanent Establishment-Transactions found to be at arm’s length-Supplying materials through direct imports to Indian Railways-Allegation of wholly owned subsidiary-No material to prove conclusively that Indian Subsidiary’s place assessee’s Permanent Establishment falling in any of three Categories. Petition is allowed. Liberty is given to Department to independently examine whether Delhi Office of assessee a Permanent Establishment or service Permanent Establishment-DTAA-India-USA. [S.92CA, 133A, 148, Art.5(1), 5(2), 5(3), 5(4)]

Poonam Builders v. ACIT (2024)466 ITR 186/162 taxmann.com 238 /(2025) 342 CTR 254(Bom)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Effect of third proviso to Section 147-Income which was the subject matter of appeal-Notice Of Reassessment In Respect Of Such Income Not Valid. [S.80IB(10), 148, 250, Art. 226]

Geopreneur Realty Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI (2024)466 ITR 640 (Bom)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Financial cost-Interest-Tax deducted at source-Query was raised in the course of original assessment proceedings-Reassessment notice on same issue is not valid.[S. 148, Art. 226]

Sunita Purushottam Virgincar (Smt.) v. ITO (2024)466 ITR 238/164 taxmann.com 352 (Bom)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Capital gains-Sale consideration-Division of income between spouses and not assets for capital gains-Portuguese Civil Code-Notice based on wrong facts and erroneous reasons-Notice and order disposing the objection is quashed. [S.5A, 50C, 133A, 148, Art. 226]

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]