Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Sunny Rashikbhai Laheri v. ITO (2023) 148 taxmann.com 438 (Guj)( HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment – Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice – All original notices issued under section 148 of old regime and issued between 1-4-2021 and 30-6-2021 would stand beyond prescribed timeline of six years from end of assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15- Assessment time barred under old regime and could not be issued as per amended provisions. [ S. 148 , 148A(b), 148A(d), 149, 151 , Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, S.3 , Art , 226 ]

CIT ( IT) v. Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd. (2023) 456 ITR 34/ 293 Taxman 385 /332 CTR 221/ 224 DTR 361 (Delhi)( HC)

S. 143(3): Assessment – Assessment order without DIN (document identification number ) has not valid in law – Statutory defects in the assessment order cannot be cured by applying the provision of section 292B of the Act Circular No 19 of 2019 dated 14 -8 -209 ( 2019) 416 ITR 140 (St) –Circular of CBDT is binding on the Revenue – Order of Tribunal quashing the assessment order was affirmed . [ S. 144C, 147, 292B ]

PCIT v. Durgapur Projects Ltd ( 2023) BCAJ- May – P. 47 ( Cal)( HC)

S. 50C : Capital gains – Full value of consideration – Stamp valuation – Compulsory acquisition of a capital asset – Land or building – [S. 2(47), National Highway Act , 1956 ]

CIT v. Machino Techno Sales Ltd ( 2023) BCAJ -May – P. 47 ( Cal)( HC).

S. 45 : Capital gains –Capital asset – Owner – Development agreement – Assessable as capital gains and not as business income .[ S. 28(i) ]

PCIT v. Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd (2023)) 149 taxmann.com 286 ( Cal)( HC)

S.37(1): Business expenditure – Prior period expenditure -Crystallised during the year – Allowable as deduction . [ S. 145 ]

Micro Marbles Pvt Ltd v .ITO ( 2023) The Chamber’s Journal- March P. 120 ( Raj )( HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment –Notice – Material for a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment was not supplied – Reassessment notice was quashed [ S.132(4), 147 Art , 226 ]

PCIT v. Organon India Pvt Ltd (2023) The Chamber’s Journal – April – P. 133 ( Cal )( HC)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arm’s length price -Outsourcing its manufacturing activity – Advertisement , marketing and promotion expenses – Transfer pricing adjustment is not justified . [ S. 92B ]

Subex Ltd v. DCIT ( 2023) The Chamber’s Journal- March P. 119 ( Karn )( HC)

S. 40(a)(ia): Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source – TDS was deducted on provision – Provision was reversed in next year – Parties are not identified – Addition for failure to deduct tax was held to be not justified [ S. 194J ]

CIT ( E) v. Servants of People Society ( 2022) 145 taxmann.com 145 ( Delhi)( HC) Editorial: Followed CIT(E) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (2022)449 ITR 1 / 329 CTR 297/219 DTR 209// 143 taxmann.com 278 (SC), SLP of Revenue was dismissed, CIT ( E) v. Servants of People Society( 2023) 290 Taxman 127 (SC)

S. 11: Property held for charitable purposes – Publishing newspaper – Denial of exemption is not justified [ S. 2(15),10(23C(iv)), 12A, 80G ]

ACIT v. K. B. Developers (2021) 189 ITD 344 /(2022) 95 ITR 176 / 210 DTR 317 / 216 TTJ 68 (2022) 95 ITR 176 (Kol) ( Trib)

S. 37(1):Business expenditure – Commission — Person who received commission confirming it by filing return of income — No evidence to show that money paid as commission has come back to assessee — Allowable as deduction .