Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Manas Sewa Samiti v. Add. CIT (2021) 439 ITR 79/ 323 CTR 737 / 208 DTR 41 (2022) 284 taxman 418 (All.)(HC)

S. 10(23C) : Educational institution-Computation of income-Receipt from education institution was less than 1 Crore-Entitle to exemption-Receipts of educational institution cannot be clubbed with other income of the society for the purpose of computing exemption u/s. 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act. [S. 10(23C)(iiiad), 12AA, IT Rules, 1962, 2BC]

CIT v. Prabhu Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. (2021) 283 Taxman 89 (Mad.) (HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Capital or revenue-Sale of Certified Emission Reduction Credit-Not assessable as business income. [S. 28(i)]

PCIT v. Anumod Sharma (2021) 283 Taxman 564 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 2(22)(e): Deemed dividend-Advance against sale of commercial space-Addition cannot be made as deemed dividend.

CIT v. Cochin Malabar Estates & Industries Ltd (2021) 208 DTR 119 / (2022) 440 ITR 121/324 CTR 246/134 taxmann.com 162/ 285 Taxman 69 (Ker.) (HC)

S. 2(14)(iii) : Capital asset-Agricultural land-Land continued to be agricultural land in the revenue records-located 20 kms. away from municipal corporation limits-Cutting and carrying away of rubber trees did not change classification of land from agricultural to non-agricultural land-User by buyer is not relevant for assessing the gain in the hands of the assessee-Not liable to be assessed as capital gains [S. 45]

CIT(TDS) v. Vodafone Cellular Ltd. (2021)131 taxmann.com 191 ( Bom) (HC) Editorial : Notice is issued in SLP filed by the revenue , CIT(TDS) v. Vodafone Cellular Ltd. (2021) 283 Taxman 292 (SC)

S. 194H : Deduction at source – Commission or brokerage – Sale of prepaid SIM cards to distributors – Discounts given by assessee-telecommunication company on sale of prepaid SIM cards to distributors- Not liable to deduct tax at source

Rohan Developers Pvt. Ltd v. ITO (IT) / ( 2022) 211 DTR 184 (Bom) (HC) www.itatonline.org

S. 195: Deduction at source – Non-resident – Lower deduction of tax – Indexation – Binding precedent – Order of Tribunal is binding on lower Authorities – Capital gains – Cost of acquisition of the property in the hands of seller is deemed to be the cost for which the said property was acquired by previous owner – Excess tax paid by the petitioner was directed to be refunded with interest [ S. 2(29A) 2(42A) 45, 48, 49(1)(ii), 55(2)(b)(ii), 195 (2), 244A(1)(b), Art 226]

Tata Sons Limited v. Dy.CIT (Bom) (HC)) www.itatonline.org

S.147: Reassessment – After the expiry of four years – No failure to disclose material facts – Change of opinion – Capital gains or business income – Sale of shares – Reassessment proceedings are quashed. [ S. 28(i), 45, 148, 154, Art 226 ]

Nirmal Bnag Securities Pvt Ltd v. ACIT (Bom) (HC) www.itatonline.org

S.147: Reassessment – After the expiry of four years – No failure to disclose material facts – Information based on search of third party – Reason recorded not indicated anywhere or any stretch of imagination the income has escaped assessment – Non application of mind by the sanctioning authority – Observed that the Assessing Officers will record better reasons for reopening and the Authority granting approval will also apply their mind sincerely before granting approval – Re assessment proceedings was quashed [ S. 148, 151, Art 226 ]

CIT v. Al Ameen Educational Trust ( 2018 )254 Taxman 402 ( Ker ) (HC) Editorial : Al Ameen Educational Trust v. CIT ( 2021) 283 Taxman 285 (SC). SLP is dismissed as withdrawn as the assessee proposed to avail the benefit under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishaws Act 2020

S.269SS: Acceptance of loans and deposits -Penalty Failure to prove reasonable cause – Penalty order was affirmed – Order of Tribunal is reversed [ S. 271D, 273B ]

Raman Krishna Kumar v. DCIT (2021) 439 ITR 521 /131 taxmann.com 341 / (2022) 284 Taxman 108 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 276CC : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to furnish return of income-Failure to file the return on due date-Wilful attempt to evade tax-Presumption of culpable mind-Burden is on the assessee to prove that the failure was not wilful. [S. 276C, 278E, Form No 26AS, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S. 482]