Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


JCIT v. Chambal Fertilisers & Chemicals Ltd. (2022) 220 DTR 481 (SC) / (2023) 450 ITR 164 /291 Taxman 438/ 330 CTR 110 (SC)

S. 40(a)(ii) : Amounts not deductible – Rates or tax – Education cess- In view of retrospective amendment vide Finance Act, 2022 to section 40(a)(ii), education cess paid not allowable as an expenditure [ S. 37(1) ]

PCIT v. EIH Ltd ( 2022) 329 CTR 95/ 218 DTR 389 (Cal)( HC)

S. 40(a)(ia): Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source – Commission and sitting fees to directors – Amended provision of section 194J is not applicable – Deletion of addition is justified [ S. 194H , 194J ]

PCIT v. EIH Ltd ( 2022) 329 CTR 95/ 218 DTR 389 (Cal)( HC)

S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source -Non-resident –Professional and consultancy charges – Explanation 4 was not on the statute -Deletion of addition is justified [ S. 9(1)(vi)), 195 ]

CIT v. KBD Sugar & Distilleries Ltd. (2022) 220 DTR 483 / 144 taxmann.com 38 (Karn) (HC)

S. 32 : Depreciation -Windmills – Income offered – Depreciation is allowable .

PCIT v. EIH Ltd ( 2022) 329 CTR 95/ 218 DTR 389 (Cal)( HC)

S .14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income – Failure to record satisfaction – Deletion of addition is justified. [ R. 8D ]

Karumanchi Nalini (Dr.) v. ITO (2022) 196 ITD 673 (Visakha) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-Investment in a residential house-Followed direction of Commissioner-Subsequent revision order was quashed. [S. 54F, 143(3)]

Shanmuga Sundaram Govindaraj v. ACIT (2022) 196 ITD 576 / 218 TTJ 988 / 216 DTR 329 (Chennai)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Consideration as per sale deed and whether tolerance limit of 10 per cent for difference between sale consideration as per sale deed and SDV is to be considered or not are debatable issues-Revision is bad in law. [S. 56(2)(vii)(b)]

Pawan Kumar v. ITO (2022) 196 ITD 378 / 220 TTJ 86 / 219 DTR 267 (Chd.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Cash deposit in the Bank-Un explained money-AIR information flagged-Non-filer of returns-Revisionary powers could not be permitted to be exercised on suspicions and inferences-Revision order was quashed. [S. 44AD, 69A]

Tata Medical Centre Trust v. CIT(E) (2022) 196 ITD 302 / (2023) 222 TTJ 249 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Document Identification No. (DIN)-Revision order passed manually without Document Identification No. (DIN) in its body-Held to be invalid and deemed to have never been issued.

Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd. v. PCIT (2022) 196 ITD 316 (Kol.) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Carry forward and set-off of business losses-Set-off of brought forward losses against short term capital gains-Leasing business-As per section 72(1)(i) assessee is entitled to set-off brought forward business loss against income which has attributes of business income even though same is assessable to tax under head other than profits and gains from business-Revision order is not valid. [S. 72]