Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Herbalife International India Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022)100 ITR 456 (Bang) (Trib)

S. 145 : Method of accounting-Inventory write off-Failure to provide the evidence-Not allowable as deduction. [S. 28(i)]

Roop Square P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 99 ITR 451 (Chd)(Trib)

S. 145 : Method of accounting-No defects in books of account-Estimation of GP was deleted-Forward dated bills duly accounted-Sufficient cash in hand-Deletion of addition is proper. [S.68, 145(3), 153A]

HCC Samsung Joint Venture v. ACIT (2022) 220 DTR 105 / 220 TTJ 671 (Mum)(Trib)

S. 145 : Method of accounting-Work in progress-Notional valuation-Consolidating books of account-Addition is deleted.[S. 69]

HCC Samsung Joint Venture v. ACIT (2022) 220 DTR 105/ 220 TTJ 631/ (2023) 148 taxmann.com 119 (Mum)(Trib)

S. 145 : Method of accounting-Valuation of stock-Joint venture-Addition on account of construction work-Addition was deleted.

Narendra Laxmansingh Solanki v. Dy. CIT (2022) 98 ITR 10 (SN) (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 145 : Method of accounting-Difference between contractual receipts according to Form 26AS and in books of assessee-Meagre difference-Addition was deleted. [S. 5]

DSV Solutions (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 220 DTR 297 /144 taxmann.com 181 / (2023) 221 TTJ 310 (Mum)(Trib)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Draft assessment order was not forwarded to correct address-Order is barred by limitation [S. 92CA(3), 127(2) 153]

Suretex Prophylactics (India) Ltd. v. ACIT (2022)96 ITR 275 (Bang)(Trib)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Draft Assessment order-Procedure-Mandatory-Issue of demand notice and penalty notice along with draft assessment order-Assessment order was quashed. [S.143(3), 156]

Michael Page International Recruitment (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 219 DTR 57 / 99 ITR 65 / 220 TTJ 137 / 143 taxmann.com 253 (Mum)(Trib)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Rectification order-Not barred by limitation-Order was passed within six months from end of month in which original order was passed-It would not be open to Assessing Officer to hold giving effect to these directions even if said directions were found to be prima facie incorrect. [S. 92C,144C(13), R. 10]

Shapoorji Pallonji Bumi Armada (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 220 TTJ 951 / 139 taxmann.com 572 (Mum)(Trib)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Rectification application-Rule 13 does not permit a rectification application being entertained from a person other than assessee, Assessing Officer or DRP itself-Miscellaneous application filed by TPO before DRP for rectifying various mistakes in order of DRP would not be maintainable.[S.92C, 154, Rule 13]

Kontoor Brands India P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2022)100 ITR 73 (SN)(Bang) (Trib)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Limitation-Time-limit for passing final order of assessment-One month from end of month in which directions of Dispute Resolution Panel received by Assessing Officer-Order passed beyond that date-Non est in law. [S. 92CA (3), 144C(13), 153, 153B]