Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Bosch Ltd. v. CIT LTU (2022) 197 ITD 160 / 98 ITR 1 (SN) (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Investment in new plant or machinery-Assets acquired by it before 1-4-2013 but installed after financial year 2013-14-Deduction was allowed after application of mind-Revision is not valid. [S. 32AC]

H.R. International. v. PCIT (2022) 97 ITR 129 / 197 ITD 53 (Amritsar) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Remuneration is allowable under provisions of Income-tax Act-Remuneration to partners-Revision is not valid. [S. 40(b)(v)]

Sheraton International, LLC. V. JCIT (IT) (2022) 197 ITD 351 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Territorial jurisdiction-Binding precedent-Jurisdictional High court or Tribunal-Lower authorities are bound to follow the judgement, even if revenue had challenged previous order of jurisdictional High Court and matter was pending before Supreme Court. [S. 250, 254(1)]

Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. DCIT (2022) 197 ITD 802 / 220 TTJ 516/219 DTR 238 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 254(2A) : Appellate Tribunal-Stay-Recovery-Tribunal can only grant a stay subject to a deposit of not less than 20 per cent of disputed demand, or furnishing of security thereof-Tribunal cannot grant blanket stay as per section 254(1) by making first proviso to section 254(2A) redundant. [S. 220(6), 254(1)]

Hyundai Motor India Ltd. v. NEAC (2022) 197 ITD 196 (Chennai) (Trib.)

S. 254(2A) : Appellate Tribunal-Stay-Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Stay of recovery-Appeal is pending before Tribunal-Agreed to deposit 20 percent of disputed demand-Stay was granted to assessee for a period of six months or till such time appeal filed by assessee was disposed off by Tribunal. [S. 220, 254(1)]

DZ Bank v. DCIT (2022) 197 ITD 147 / 219 TTJ 351 (Mum.) (Trib.)

S. 205 : Deduction at source-Bar against direct demand-Interest income-Credit for tax deducted at source-Payee has to discharge its responsibility of showing that the payer has deducted tax on income-Assessing Officer need not insist on demand in respect of said TDS payment to Government account-Matter remanded. [S. 199]

State Bank of India v. ACIT (2020) 197 ITD 479 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 201 : Deduction at source-Failure to deduct or pay-Limitation of two years-Reimbursement of leave travel concession schme to employees-Section 201(3), as amended by Finance Act (No. 2) of 2014 shall not be applicable retrospectively. [S. 10(5), 192, 201(1), (201(3)]

ITO (IT) v. International Reinsurance and Insurance Consultancy & Broking Services (P.) Ltd. (2022) 197 ITD 198 / (2023) 222 TTJ 515 / 224 DTR 29 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 195 : Deduction at source-Non-resident-Reinsurance premium amount transferred to NRRs-NRRs did not have PE in India-Not liable to deduct TDS-DTAA-India-Singapore. [S. 9(1)(i), 201, Art. 7]

Heidelberg Cement AG. v. ACIT, IT (2022) 197 ITD 791 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 194LD : Interest on certain bonds and Government securities-Interest earned from said NCDs-Bonds-Debentures-In absence of specific definition of bonds in Act, term ‘bonds’ used in section 194LD should be considered as including NCDs and accordingly concessional rate of 5 per cent-DTAA-India-Germany. [S. 9(1)(v) 115A, Art. 11]

Taraben Jayantilal Patel (Smt.) v. DCIT (2022) 197 ITD 755 (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Mistake apparent from the record-Income from house property-Discrepancy in receipts as shown in 26AS-Service tax-Reconciled by assessee with sufficient evidence adduced before revenue and this resulted in higher amount being shown in Form 26AS, additions made for difference was to be deleted. [S. 22, 143(1)]