Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Coca-Cola India P. Ltd. v. DCIT (2022) 440 ITR 20 (Bom) ( HC)

S.147: Reassessment – After the expiry of four years – Condition Precedent — Notice not specifying failure to disclose any material facts truly and fully by assessee — Notice and subsequent order invalid. [S. 148, Art , 226 ]

Inder Prasad Mathura Lal v. NEAC (2022) 440 ITR 73 (Raj) ( HC) Inder Prasad Mathura Lal v. NEAC (2022) 440 ITR 73 (Raj) ( HC)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment – Contention of denial of opportunity of personal hearing requested by Assessee — Assessment order stayed.[ Art , 226 ]

Sribasta Kumar Swain v .UOI (2022) 440 ITR 545 (Orissa) (HC) Sribasta Kumar Swain v .UOI (2022) 440 ITR 545 (Orissa) (HC)

144B: Faceless Assessment –Mandatory condition – Assessment order passed without passing the draft assessment order – Assessing Officer was directed to pass a fresh order , after complying with requirement of section 144B .[ S. 143 (3), Art , 226 ]

Deepak Garg v. UOI (2022) 440 ITR 575 (Delhi) ( HC )Deepak Garg v. UOI (2022) 440 ITR 575 (Delhi) ( HC )

S. 143(3) : Assessment –Show cause notice granting time of only four days – Assessment order passed in violation of principles of natural justice to be set aside. [ Art , 226 ] S. 143(3) : Assessment –Show cause notice granting time of only four days – Assessment order passed in violation of principles of natural justice to be set aside. [ Art , 226 ]

Varun Raj Pillai v. PCIT (2022) 440 ITR 47 / 211 DTR 45/ (2022) 325 CTR 45/285 Taxman 242(Gauhati )( HC)/Rajendra Pillai .M.K. v.PCIT ( 2022) 2022) 440 ITR 47 / 211 DTR 45/ 325 CTR 45/285 Taxman 242 (Gauhati )( HC)/Valsala Raj Pillai (Smt) v.PCIT ( 2022) 2022) 440 ITR 47 / 211 DTR 45/ 325 CTR 45/285 Taxman 242 (Gauhati )( HC) Editorial : Decision of single judge in M.K. Rajendran Pillai v. PCIT ( 2020) 421 ITR 274 ( Gauhati ) (HC) is affirmed .

S. 127 : Power to transfer cases – Assigning of reasons in notice — Search proceedings showing that assessee residing in Nagaland and had financial interests in Kerala — Transfer for purposes of co-ordinated investigation — Cogent and credible reasons assigned in notice — Notice sent to registered office in Kerala and received by Assessee — Order for transfer valid .[S. 132, ITR 127, Art, 226 ]

Hosdurg Range Kallu Chethu Thozhilali Vyavasaya Sahakarana Sangham v. CIT (2022) 440 ITR 65 / 285 Taxman 133 (Ker) (HC)

S. 80P : Co-operative societies – Society formed for enabling financial and social welfare of toddy tappers and workers for tapping and selling toddy — Could not be considered co-operative society engaged in collective disposal of labour of its members — Eligibility of assessee for deduction as society engaged in marketing of agricultural produce grown by its members — Matter remitted to Tribunal.[S.80P(2)(a)(vi) ]

Jetha Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2022) 440 ITR 524 / 209 DTR 201/ 324 CTR 326 / 286 Taxman 504 (Bom) ( HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure –Capital or revenue – Ware house business – Expenditure for raising floor height of Godown – Expenditure incurred to run the business profitably is revenue expenditure.

PCIT v. Mahagun Realtors Private Limited (SC) www.itatonline .org

S. 143(3): Assessment – Order passed in the name of non-existent amalgamating entity – valid. [ Companies Act, 1956, S. 394 , 481 ]

S. 143(3): Assessment – Order passed in the name of non-existent amalgamating entity – valid. [ Companies Act, 1956, S. 394 , 481 ]

Core Metal Krafts Ltd. v. ACIT (2021) 92 ITR 379 (Chd.)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Tax audit disclosing the disallowance of expenses under section 43B-Inadvertently left out while computing the income-Penalty levied was deleted. [S. 43B]

Trio Trend Exports P. Ltd. v. PCIT (2021) 92 ITR 18 (SN) (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Tax deducted at source-Limited scrutiny assessment-Detail verified-No loss to revenue-Revision order was quashed. [S. 143(2), 143(3)]