Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


AB Sciex Pte. Ltd. v. ACIT (IT) (2022) 195 ITD 384 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection-Annual Maintenance Contract with an Indian Co-Not to constitute either a fixed place PE or agency PE business profit of assessee could not be taxed in India-DTAA-India-Singapore. [Art. 5, 8]

UPS Asia Group Pte. Ltd. v. ACIT (IT) (2022) 195 ITD 225 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection-Permanent establishment-Agency PE-Agent is paid arm’s length remuneration-Tax neutral-Not taxable-DTAA-India-Singapore. [Art. 5]

Greenboom Developers & Resorts Ltd. v. ITO (2022) 195 ITD 567 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S.2(14)(iii): Capital asset-Agricultural land-Failure to provide evidence-Matter remanded back to Assessing Officer for verification [S. 10(37), 45]

Chimanbhai Dahyabhai Patel. v. ITO (2022) 195 ITD 585 (Surat) (Trib.)

S. 2(14)(iii) : Capital asset-Agricultural land-Hazira Notified area-not a municipal area or deemed municipality-Compensation received on the acquisition of such land was not taxable. [S. 10(37)]

PCIT v. Pavitra Trexim Pvt. Ltd.(2022) 216 DTR 225 / 327 CTR 797 (Cal) ( HC)/ Canton Vinimay (P) Ltd; PCIT v. (2022) 216 DTR 225 / 327 CTR 797 (Cal)(HC) /Sagar Fintrade ( P) Ltd ; PCIT v. ( 2022) 216 DTR 225 /327 CTR 797 ( Cal )( HC)

S. 260A: Appeal -High Court – Territorial jurisdiction – Order passed by the Delhi Tribunal – Appeal filed in Calcutta High Court – Assessment files transferred from Delhi to Calcutta – Calcutta High Court has no jurisdiction- Appeals are rejected as not maintainable -Liberty granted to file the appeals before the appropriate High Court. [ S. 127, 254(1), 256(1), 256(2), 269 ]

PCIT v. Roshan Maheshwari (Proprietor of M/s Maheshwari Minerals) (2022) 219 DTR 499/( 2023) 330 CTT 603 (Jharkhand)( HC)

S.254(1): Appellate Tribunal -Duties -ITAT misdirected by going into the facts of assessment order dated 31.03.2016 when the appeal arose out of order dated 15.12.2017- Order of Tribunal was remanded for passing a fresh order after verifying the records. [ S. 148, 148, 151, 260A ]

PCIT v. JPM Tools Ltd (2022) 219 DTR 201 / 329 CTR 526 (Delhi)( HC )

S. 153A: Assessment – Search or requisition- Share certificate – Disclosed in the books of account – Statement of a third party – Opportunity of cross-examination not given – Order is bad in law [ S. 68, 132(4) , 133(6) ]

Raj Kumar Jain v. PCIT (2022) 215 DTR 101 / 327 CTR 461(MP)( HC)

S. 151: Reassessment – Notice – After the expiry of four years – without proper sanction – Reassessment proceedings quashed.[ S. 148 , 151(1) ]

Pradeep Kumar Varshney v. ITO ( 2022 ) 214 DTR 74 / 326 CTR 882 (Delhi ) ( HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment – Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice – Third party Search – Provision of section 153C is applicable – Notice under section 148A is held to be bad in law – Remanded the matter back to the AO to pass a fresh reasoned order in accordance with the law. [ S. 148, 148A(d), 153C, Art , 226 ]

Ramesh Chandra v . NFAC (2022) 327 CTR 744/ 216 DTR 293 (Raj)( HC)

S. 147: Reassessment – Principle of natural justice – Reassessment completed without providing an opportunity of being heard- Contention of alternative remedy was rejected – Order and notice was quashed and set aside [ S. 148, Art, 226 ]