Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


J. M. J. Essential Oil Company v. CIT (2023)453 ITR 754/ 292 Taxman 314 (SC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty -Concealment -Cash sales – Value Added Tax Authorities accepting cash Sales- Independent finding of fact that the assessee had introduced unaccounted income as cash sales —Inaccurate particulars of income -Levy of penalty affirmed by High court -SLP of assessee is dismissed. [S.80IAC, Art, 136]

PCIT v. Urmila Rcp Projects Pvt. Ltd. (No. 2) (2023)453 ITR 43 / 293 Taxman 210 / 331 CTR 579/ 223 DTR 376/293 Taxman 210 (Jharkhand)(HC)

S. 268A : Appeal -Instructions – Monetary Limits- Audit objection was not on the issue in the appeal – Appeal was dismissed in Limine. [S. 143(3) 260A, 263]

PCIT v. Britannia Industries Ltd. (2023)453 ITR 576/ 330 CTR 435 (Cal)(HC) Editorial: Order in Britannia Industries Ltd v. PCIT (2023) 102 ITR 513 (Kol)(Trib), is affirmed.

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Commissioner holding view different from that of Assessing Officer on a particular issue -Revision is not justified- High Court cannot set aside finding of Appellate Tribunal unless finding is perverse.[S. 260A]

CIT v. Paville Projects Pvt. Ltd. (2023)453 ITR 447/ 293 Taxman 38/ 332 CTR 28/ 224 DTR 185 (SC) Editorial: CIT v. Paville Projects Pvt. Ltd(2017) 398 ITR 603 (Bom)(HC), reversed. Refer Paville Projects Pvt. Ltd v. CIT (2014) 35 ITR 352/ (2016) 71 taxmann.com 287 (Mum)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Capital gains -Cost of improvement -Paid to shareholders under Family Settlement – Discharge encumbrances-Cost of improvement -Relinquishment of rights – Assessing Officer accepting claim -Order erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue -Revision is justified- Order of High Court reversed. [S. 45, 48, 55(1)(b)]

Broadways Overseas Ltd. v.CIT (2023)453 ITR 774/ 292 Taxman 33 (SC) Editorial : Broadways Overseas Ltd v. CIT (P& H)(HC) (ITA No. 234 of 2009 dt. 22-11 -2013) is affirmed.

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Total income -Eligible profit -Export profit -Deduction under Section 80HHC to be computed on eligible profits only after reducing profits on which deduction availed of under Section 80IB of the Act -Revision was affirmed -Special Leave to appeal of the assessee was dismissed. [S.80HHC, 800IA(9), 80IB(13)]

Mansarovar Commercial Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2023)453 ITR 661/ 293 Taxman 312 / 332 CTR 137/ 224 DTR 305 (SC) Editorial: Decision of Delhi High Court, affirmed, CIT v. Mansarovar Commercial Pvt. Ltd (Delhi)(HC) (2016) 134 DTR 105 / 287 CTR 28 (Delhi)(HC).Editorial , Review petition is dismissed ,Mansarovar Commercial Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2023)453 ITR 661/ 293 Taxman 312 / 332 CTR 137/ 224 DTR 305 (SC)

S. 234A : Interest – Default in furnishing return of income – Levy of interest is mandatory. [S. 2(35), 5, 6(3)(ii), 131, 142(1), 143(2), 148, 282]

Milestone Systems A/S v. Dy. CIT (No. 1) (2023) 453 ITR 250 //150 taxmann.com 348 / 334 CTR 89/ 225 DTR 369 (Delhi)(HC) Milestone Systems A/S v. Dy. CIT (NO. 2) (2023)453 ITR 255 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 197 : Deduction at source – Certificate for lower rate -Non -Resident – Payments under distributor agreement —Certificate for withholding tax at rate of 9.99 Per Cent- Order set aside- Precedent -Supreme Court -Binding on Authorities. [S. 195, Rule 28AA, Art. 226]

Van Oord Acz India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2023)453 ITR 214 / 292 Taxman 405/ 226 DTR 89 (SC) Editorial: Observation of Delhi High Court set aside, Van Oord Acz India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 130 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 195 : Deduction at source – Non-resident -Observations of High Court that if in assessment proceedings of Netherlands company, that company held liable to be taxed in India and assessee would also be treated as in default -Observation was quashed. [S.40(a)(i)), Art. 136]

Anil Minda v. CIT (2023) 453 ITR 1 / 292 Taxman 407 /331 CTR 705 / 224 DTR 665 (SC) Editorial: CIT v. Anil Minda (2010) 328 ITR 320 (Delhi)(HC) is affirmed.

S. 158BE : Block assessment – Time limit – Search and seizure – Limitation -From date of last Panchnama and not date of last warrant of authorisation [S. 132, 158C]

Garwal Logistics Ltd. v. CIT (2023)453 ITR 524 (Delhi)(HC) Editorial: Order of single judge is affirmed, Garhwal Logistics Ltd. v. ITO (2023)453 ITR 527 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 156 : Notice of demand -Bogus accommodation entries – lacked bona fides- Refund of money transferred to bank account in which Department had Lien for tax dues of company- Question of facts -The assessee was directed to approach appropriate Forum or Civil Court for recovery of its claim. [Art. 226]