Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


PCIT v. Fish Poultry and Egg Marketing Committee (2023)455 ITR 252/149 taxmann.com 487 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 10(26AAB) : Income of an agricultural produce market committee or board-Trading in fish, poultry and eggs-Entitled to set-off of loss against fee income. [Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1976, S. 2(1)(a)]

CIT (IT). v. Ad2pro Media Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 455 ITR 648 /148 taxmann.com 226(Karn)(HC) Editorial: SLP dismissed, CIT v. Ad2pro Media Solutions (P.) Ltd. (2023) 157 taxmann.com 205/296 Taxman 569 ( (SC)

S. 9(1)(vii) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Fees for technical services-Non-Resident-Marketing services-No Permanent Establishment in India-Not taxable-Not liable to deduct tax at source-DTAA-India-USA. [S. 201, Art. 12(4)]

CIT (IT) v. Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy (2023)455 ITR 157/147 taxmann.com 165 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection-Permanent establishment-Global net loss-DTAA-India-Finland [Art. 7]

PCIT v. P. M. A. Razak (2023)455 ITR 446 / 153 taxmann.com 501 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend-Loans and advances-Withdrawal-Matter remanded to Tribunal. [S. 254(1), 260A]

Unique Trading Company v. ITO (2024) 298 Taxman 176 ( Bom)( HC) www.itatonline .org

S. 276C : Offences and prosecutions – Wilful attempt to evade tax – Death of manging partner – Failure to pay self assessment tax – Tax and interest was paid before launching of prosecution-Delay of eight years in depositing the tax and interest – Launching of prosecution is quashed . [ S. 220, 276(2), 277, 278B, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , S.482 ]

Suman Paper And Boards Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (2023)454 ITR 296/ 225 DTR 34 (Guj)(HC)/Editorial : SLP of Revenue is dismissed , Jt. CIT v. Suman Paper and Boards Ltd.(2024) 301 Taxman 401 / 468 ITR 106 (SC)

S. 276CCC : 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. [S. 132, 158BC(a)(ii), 158BFA, 277, 278B, 278E]

Dev Multicom Pvt. Ltd. v. State Of Jharkhand (2023)454 ITR 48 /333 CTR 516 (Jharkhand )(HC Jaya Devi v. State Of Jharkhand (2023)454 ITR 48 /333 CTR 516 (Jharkhand )(HC AT-Dev Prabha (JV) v. State Of Jharkhand (2023)454 ITR 48 /333 CTR 516 (Jharkhand )(HC Dev Prabha Construction Pvt Ltd v. State Of Jharkhand (2023)454 ITR 48 /333 CTR 516 (Jharkhand )(HC AT-Dev PL (JV) and Another v. State Of Jharkhand (2023)454 ITR 48 (Jharkhand )(HC Aarti Devi @ Arti Devi v. State Of Jharkhand (2023)454 ITR 48 (Jharkhand )(HC Vishwa Vijay Singh v. State Of Jharkhand (2023)454 ITR 48 (Jharkhand )(HC Editorial : SLP of Revenue is dismissed, ACIT v. At-Devi Prabha (JV) and others (2023) 454 ITR 59 (SC)

S. 276B : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to pay to the credit tax deducted at source-Failure due to inadvertence-Deposited tax deducted at source with interest Though After Delay-Instruction F. No. 255/339/79-IT(Inv.) dated May 28, 1980-Prosecution orders were quashed. [S. 201(1), 201(IA), 278AA, 278B, 279(1), Rules 30(2), Criminal Procedure Code, S.482]

ACIT v. At-Dev Prabha (JV) and Ors (2023)454 ITR 59/ 293 Taxman 172 (SC) Editorial : AT-Dev Prabha (JV) v. State Of Jharkhand (2023)454 ITR 48 (Jharkhand )(HC), affirmed

S. 276B : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to pay to the credit tax deducted at source-Failure due to inadvertence-Deposited tax deducted at source with interest Though After Delay-Instruction F. No. 255/339/79-IT(Inv.) dated May 28, 1980-Prosecution orders were quashed-SLP of revenue dismissed. [S. 201(1), 201(IA), 278AA, 278B, 279(1), Rules 30(2), Criminal Procedure Code, S.482]

Rohit Kapur v. PCIT (2023)454 ITR 198/ 292 Taxman 135 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 270AA : Immunity from imposition of penalty, etc-Opportunity of hearing must be given before rejecting application. [270AA(2), 270AA(4),Art.226].

CIT v. N. Sasikala (2023)454 ITR 387 (Mad)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue Revision-Failure to consider report of Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption-Order is erroneous-Order of the Tribunal is set aside-Interlocutory order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) is not binding on Tribunal. [S. 254(1) 260A]