Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Ravi Jakhar v. ACIT (2024) 208 ITD 633 (Mum)(Trib.)

S. 2(42A) : Short-term capital asset-Capital gains-Unlisted shares-Investment in a residential house-Amended provisions of section 2(42A), which exclude holding period of unlisted shares being held for 12 months to be treated as long-term capital gain is applicable from assessment year 2015-16-Shares held around 31 months-Matter remanded to decide issue afresh as per provisions of law. [S. 45, 54F]

ND’s Art World Private Limited v. Add.CIT (OSD) (Bom)(HC) www.itatonline .org

S. 119 : Central Board of Direct Taxes- Circular – Return of income – Condonation of delay – Jurisdictional error – Power vested in CBDT – Order passed by Dy.CIT (OSD) (OT & WT) is without jurisdiction – Quashed and remanded to CBDT. [ S.119(2)(b) , 139, Art. 226 ]

Kesar Terminals & Infrastructure Ltd v. Dy.CIT ( Bom)( HC)

S. 147: Reassessment – Objection disposed along with the assessment order – Order passed without disposing the objection by passing a separate order- Failure to dispose of objections separate order – Reopening notice and reassessment order is quashed and set aside . [S. 80 IA, 142 (1), 143(3),148, Art. 226 ]

Pawan International v. ITO (Chd)(Trib) (UR)

S. 272A : Penalty-Failure to answer questions-Sign statements-Furnish information-Substantial compliance-Levy of penalty is not justified. [S. 143(3), 272A(1)(d)]

Raj Auto Wheels Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, (2024) 111 ITR 336 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Mere disallowance of expenditure no penalty can be levied. [S. 274]

Finesse International Design P. Ltd. v. Add. CIT (2024)111 ITR 37 (SN)(Delhi)(Trib)

S. 271DA: Penalty for failure to comply with provisions of section 269ST-Transactions in cash exceeding prescribed limit-Bifurcating bills to each customer-Technical or venial breach-Penalty is deleted.[S. 269ST]

Ramkumar Reddy Satty v. ACIT (Hyd.)(Trib.) (UR)

S. 271D : Penalty-Takes or accepts any loan or deposit-Cash received from purchaser as final payment before Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of sale deed of property-Levy of penalty is not valid. [S. 269SS]

ITO v. Saraswati Wire And Cable Industries (Mum)(Trib)(UR)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Bogus purchases-Estimated addition-Levy of penalty is not valid.[S.69A]

Balaji Farms and Reality v. Asst. CIT (2024) 111 ITR 30 (SN) (Indore)(Trib.)

S.271 (1) (c): Penalty-Concealment-Even if the reassessment order was quashed for any reason, the original assessment order would continue to exist-Additional income assessed in reassessment would warrant separate penalty proceedings-Independent of penalty qua income assessed in the original assessment-Matter remanded to CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. [S. 143(3), 147, 148, 250]

Anjali Neeraj Hardikar v. NFAC(2024) 111 ITR 15 (SN) (Mum)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-Quantum against-Quantum decided against alone was not sufficient for initiation of penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. [S.80GGC]