Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


PCIT (Central) v. Pepsico India Holding (P.) Ltd. (2024) 299 Taxman 309 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Subsidy-Capital or revenue-Bengal Incentive Scheme, 2004-Linked to establishment of new units-Capital in nature.[S.28(i)]

PCIT v. INS Finance & Investment (P.) Ltd. (2024) 299 Taxman 131 / 340 CTR 602(Delhi)(HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Interest-Capital or revenue-Auction sale-Interest against principal amount deposited-Auction sale is nullified by court-Interest is capital receipt and cannot be assessed as income from other sources.[S. 56(2)(viii)]

Birla Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (2024) 299 Taxman 508 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Birla Corporation Ltd(2024) 159 taxmann.com 651 (Cal)(HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Capital or revenue Sales tax exemption-Notice is issued in SLP filed by the assesseee. [U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, S. 4A, Art. 136]

PCIT (Central) v. Dwarka Prasad Aggarwal (2024) 299 Taxman 363 (SC) Editorial : PCIT v. Dwarka Prasad Aggarwal (2022) 140 taxmann.com 32 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend-Trade advances-Commercial transactions-Cannot be assessed as deemed dividend-Order of High Court is affirmed-SLP of Revenue is dismissed. [Art. 136]

Ashok Kumar Rungta v. ITO ( Bom)( HC) . www.itatonline .org

S. 69C: Unexplained expenditure -Bogus purchases -Tribunal confirmed 10% of alleged bogus purchases – On appeal High Court deleted the 10% of alleged bogus purchases confirmed by the Tribunal . [ S. 260A ]

CIT ( E ) v. Shree Sai Baba Sansthan Trust – Shirdi ( Bom)( HC) www.itatonline .org .

S. 115BBC : Anonymous donations – Determination of tax in certain cases – Charitable Trust – Anonymous donations received in the Hundi cannot be taxed under Section 115BBC(1) of the Act – Order of Tribunal is affirmed – No substantial question of law . [ S. 10(23C)(v), 11, 12 ,12A , 80G (5), 115BBC(2)(b), 260A ]

SKF India Ltd v. Dy.CIT (SB ) ( Mum)( Trib) www.itatonline.org

S. 50 :Capital gains – Depreciable assets – Block of assets – Sale of depreciable asset – Long -term capital asset – Short term capital gains- Tax is leviable at 20% as long term under seecti0n 112 of the Act and not at 30% which is applicable to short term capital gains . [ S. 2(11),2(29AA), 2(29B), 2(42A),2(42B), 2(45),43(6), 48, 49,50(1), 50(2), 50A,54,54EC,74, 112 (1)]

Bharat Serums and Vaccines Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2024) 299 Taxman 246 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake – Demand appearing in the portal – No communication of order – Rectification order and demand was quashed and set aside – Strictures -Honourable Court also directed the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai (PCCIT) to have an enquiry conducted by a person not below the rank of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax to ascertain how such a demand came to be uploaded in the portal pertaining to petitioner and if there has been any negligence or lapse on the part of any officer, to take such action as the PCCIT will feel necessary against the said officer. [ S. 14A, 115JB, 156, Art. 226 , RTI Act, 2005 S.19(1) ]

Bahar Infocons Pvt. Ltd v. PCIT ( Bom)( HC) (UR) www.itatonline.org

S. 264: Commissioner – Revision of other orders – Income wrongly offered to tax and paid taxes – Assessment completed under section 143(1))- Time for filing revised return under section 139(5) has expired – Double addition- Order of Commissioner dismissing the revision application is set aside – Commissioner is directed to allow the claim of the assessee by passing an appropriate order . [S.43B, 139(5), 143(1), Art.226 , 265]

State Bank of India v.Tax Recovery Officer. (2024)463 ITR 244 (Mad)(HC) Editorial : Decision of the single judge in Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd v. TRO (2021) 18 ITR-OL 434 (Mad)(HC), reversed.

S. 281 : Certain transfers to be void-Recovery of tax-Banks and Financial Institutions-Priority of debts-No provision under Income-Tax Act, 1961 creating charge on property of defaulting assessee-State’s preferential right to recover only over ordinary unsecured creditors-Not entitled to precedence over secured debt in absence of express provisions-No basis to take view of “Doctrine of constitutional priority”–View that charge gets created only when attachment is made is unsustainable-Attachment would not constitute charge-Transfers void as against Department-Overriding effect-Distinction between, mortgage and charge-Crown debt-The orders of attachment passed by the Tax Recovery Officer being subsequent to the mortgage created in favour of the secured creditors is set aside. [S. 226, Recovery Of Debts And Bankruptcy Act, 1993, 31B, Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, S.26E,, Art. 226]