Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


CIT v. M.R. Anandaram (2023) 453 ITR 757/ 292 Taxman 548 (SC) / CIT v. M.R. Seetharaman . ( 2023) 453 ITR 757/ 292 Taxman 548 ( SC) /CIT v. M. R. Prabhavathy (2023) 295 Taxman 415 (SC) Editorial : Refer, CIT v. M.R. Anandaram (HUF) (2022) 289 Taxman 121/ 216 DTR 432/ 328 CTR 90/ /(2023) 450 ITR 94 (Karn)(HC), order of High Court affirmed.

S. 2(14)(iii) : Capital asset-Agricultural land-Capital gains-agricultural lands converted for non-agricultural purpose-lands did not fall within 8 kms from Municipality of Bangalore-Continued agricultural operation-Mere inclusion of land in Special Zone without any infrastructure development does not convert land into non-agricultural land-Not liable to capital gain tax -SLP of Revenue dismissed. [S. 45, Art. 136]

Luxora Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Dy CIT (2022) 220 DTR 65 / 220 TTJ 568 / (2023) 198 ITD 0713 (Mum)(Trib)

Precedent-Binding nature-Decisions of non-jurisdictional High Court-Only in the absence of benefit of guidance by the jurisdictional High Court on that issue. [S. 68, 153A]

Add. CIT v. Leena Gandhi Tiwari (2022)96 ITR 384/ 216 TTJ 905 (Mum) (Trib)

S .43 : Penalty-Furnishing inaccurate particulars of income-Black money-Information received from investigation wing-Foreign bank account-Search and Seizure-Non-disclosure of account inadvertent mistake-Not a case of diversion of unaccounted Indian wealth to undisclosed foreign bank accounts-Penalty cannot be levied. [S. 2(11), 60]

Sudhir Kumar Rawat v. ITO (2022) 219 TTJ 1004 / 218 DTR 337 (Jab)(Trib)

S. 275 : Penalty-Bar of limitation-From the date of initiation of penalty proceedings by the competent authority-Penalty order is not barred by limitation-Penalty deleted on merits [S. 269SS, 269T, 271D, 271E, 275(1)(c)]

Sudhir Kumar Rawat v. ITO (2022) 219 TTJ 1004 / 218 DTR 337 (Jab)(Trib)

S. 271D : Penalty-Takes or accepts any loan or deposit-Cash payment to wife-Sale consideration-Levy of penalty is not justified [S. 269SS, 271E]

Triumph Securities Ltd. v. Add. CIT (2022)99 ITR 58 (SN)(Mum) (Trib)

S. 271D : Penalty-Takes or accepts any loan or deposit-Limitation–Action for imposition of penalty initiated by notice-Time for passing of penalty order to be reckoned from that date of initiation-Order is barred by limitation. [S. 271E, 275(1)(c)]

Anuradha Chivukula Challa (Smt.) v. Addl. CIT (IT) (2022)99 ITR 1 (SN)(Bang)(Trib)

S. 271D : Penalty-Takes or accepts any loan or deposit-Non-Resident-50 Per Cent of interest in property-Sale consideration disclosed in the sale deed-No intention to evade the tax-Reasonable cause-Penalty cancelled. [S. 269SS, 273]

Dy. CIT v. C. Gangadhara Murthy v. PCIT (2022) 218 TTJ 19(UO) (Pune)(Trib)

S. 271D : Penalty-Takes or accepts any loan or deposit-Annulment of assessment-Cancellation of penalty is not valid. [S. 143(3),271E]

Sameer Noorullah Khan v. CIT (Appeals) (2022) 98 ITR 42 (SN)(Mum) (Trib)

S. 271D : Penalty-Takes or accepts any loan or deposit-Limitation-Two specific periods of limitation-End of financial year in which assessment proceedings completed, or six months from end of month in action for imposition of penalty initiated, whichever is later-Penalty order is barred by limitation. [S. 269SS, 273B, 275 (1)(c)]

Manish Jaiswal v. ACIT (2022) 216 DTR 36 / 218 TTJ 737 (Varanasi)(Trib)

S. 271C : Penalty-Failure to deduct at source-Purchase of immovable property-Reasonable cause-Not aware of the provision-Penalty was deleted.[S.194IA, 273B]