Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


CIT v. M.R. Anandaram (HUF) (2022) 289 Taxman 121 / 216 DTR 432/ 328 CTR 90/(2023) 450 ITR 94 (Karn.)(HC)/Editorial: SLP of Revenue is dismissed , CIT v. M.R. Anandaram ( 2023) 453 ITR 757 ( SC)

S. 2(14)(iii) : Capital asset-Agricultural land-Capital gains-agricultural lands converted for non-agricultural purpose-lands did not fall within 8 kms from Municipality of Bangalore-Continued agriculrural operation-Mere inclusion of land in Special Zone without any infrastructure development does not convert land into non-agricultural land-Not liable to capital gain tax. [S. 45]

PCIT v. Central Bank of India. (2022 ) 142 taxmann. com 183 ( Bom)(HC) Editorial: Notice was issued in SLP filed by Revenue , PCIT v. Central Bank of India. (2022) 289 Taxman 1 (SC)

S. 115JB : Book profit – Banking Companies – Prior to amendments by Finance Act , 2012 ,provision is not applicable to Banking companies . [ Banking Regulation Act, 1949 ]

Blackstone Capital Partners (Singapore) VI FDI Three Pte. Ltd. v. ACIT (Delhi)(HC) www.itatonline .org

S. 147: Reassessment – After the expiry of four years – Verification tax residency certificate issued by other jurisdiction – For determining residential status, treaty eligibility and legal ownership – bad in law – Reassessment Notice quashed- DTAA-India – Singapore .[S. 143(1), 148, Art, 13(4), Art , 226 ]

Nishith Madanlal Desai v.CIT ( 2022) 218 DTR 268 / 139 Taxman 52 ( Bom)( HC)

S. 147: Reassessment – After expiry of four years – Income from other sources – Income from house property -Query had been raised regarding loan taken and utilisation thereof during assessment proceeding and answered – Reopening of assessment to disallow interest on such loan -Change of opinion reassessment notice and objection disposing the objection was quashed [ S. 24(3), 56 , 148 , Art , 226 ]

Greatship (India) Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 289 Taxman 334 (Bom.)(HC). www.itatonline.org

S. 245 : Refund-Set off of refunds against tax remaining payable-Adjustment made without prior intimation is held to be bad in law. [Art. 226]

ITD v. Jenious Clothing Pvt. Ltd. (2022) 449 ITR 575 / (2023) 146 taxmann.com 52 (SC)

S. 276B : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to pay to the credit tax deducted at source-Company-Principal officer-Discharge affirmed by High Court-On submission by assessees order of discharge set aside and direction for trial to proceed keeping all defences available to accused open. [S. 2(35), 278B]

Singapore Airlines Ltd. v. CIT (2022) 449 ITR 203 / 329 CTR 553 / 220 DTR 1/((2023) 290 Taxman 139 (SC) KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. CIT (2022) 449 ITR 203 / 329 CTR 553 / 220 DTR 1 (SC) British Airways PLC v. CIT (TDS) (2022) 449 ITR 203 / 329 CTR 553 / 220 DTR 1 (SC)

S. 271C : Penalty-Failure to deduct at source-Reasonable cause-Supplementary commission-Airline-Different views High Courts-Levy of penalty is quashed. [S. 194H, 273B, Contract Act, 1872, S. 182, 215, 216]

PCIT v. Trimex Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd. (2022) 449 ITR 407 (Cal.)(HC) Editorial : SLP of the assessee dismissed Trimex Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd v. PCIT (2022) 449 ITR 4 (SC)(St)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Valuation of shares-Conducting enquiry and not recording satisfaction for accepting the claim-Satisfaction of an administrative or a quasi-authority should be manifest and vivid on the face of the order or proceedings. There can be no inference as regards satisfaction, nor can the provision of law be read in to connote deemed satisfaction-Order of revision is valid. [S. 56(2)(viib), R. 11UA]

India Heritage Foundation v. DIT (E) (2022)449 ITR 154 / 219 DTR 1/ 329 CTR 225 (SC) Editorial: DIT(E) v. India Heritage Foundation (2020) 428 ITR 299 (Karn)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-High Court remanded the matter to Assessing Officer for consideration of claim-On SLP court held that the Assessing Officer to consider all pleas of assessee including consequences of retrospective amendment irrespective of observations of High Court or Tribunal. [S. 11, 12AA, 13(8), 80IB(10), 254(1)]

M. J. Engineering Consultants P. Ltd. v. ITO (2022) 449 ITR 322 / 217 DTR 273/ 328 CTR 462 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 237 : Refunds-Intimation-Right of assessee-Failure by Department to process return within prescribed time-Direction issued to Department to grant refund with interest. [S. 139, 140. 140A, 143(1), 244A, Art. 226]