Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


PCIT v. Syngene International Ltd. (2021) 279 Taxman 364 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 10B : Export Oriented undertakings-Manufacture or production-Providing contract research services in field of molecular biology and synthetic chemistry-Eligible for exemption.

Wipro Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (2021) 279 Taxman 203 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 10A : Free trade zone-losses of unit eligible for deduction were already set-off against other business income-Such losses could not be again carried forward and set-off against eligible profits of same unit in subsequent year-Computer software sales made to STP/SEZ units would not be excluded from export turnover for computing deduction under section 10A/10AA-VAT/GST would not be excluded from export turnover and total turnover for computing deduction under section 10A/10AA.-Tribunal could not exclude 80 per cent of uplinking charges from turnover when such exclusion was already limited to 5 per cent of telecommunication charges while computing deduction under section 10A.

Gopalbhai Babubhai Parikh v. PCIT (2021) 436 ITR 262 / 279 Taxman 464 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 10(10C) : Public sector companies-Voluntary retirement scheme-Exemption not claimed in the return-Exemption claimed on the basis of judgement of supreme Court-Exemption was allowed-Order shall not be cited as precedent. [S. 143(3), 264, Art. 226]

CIT(IT) v. Micro Focus Ltd. (2021) 279 Taxman 242 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Sale of software-Not royalty-DTAA-India-UK. [Art. 13]

E. Sankaran v. ITO (2021) 279 Taxman 180 (Mad.)(HC) PCIT v. P. Kesarimal Jain (Mrs.) (2021) 279 Taxman 182 (Mad.)(HC) PCIT v. Anil Kumar Jain (2021) 279 Taxman 251 (Mad.)(HC) Andal Arumugam (Smt.) v. ACIT (2021) 279 Taxman 259 (Mad.) (HC) CIT v. Bidam Kawar (Smt.) (2021) 279 Taxman 426 (Mad.)(HC) S. Manoharan v. ACIT (2021) 279 Taxman 226 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 4 : Filing of declaration and particulars to be furnished-Appeal with drawn as dismissed-Liberty is given to restore appeal in event ultimate decision to be taken on declaration filed was in favour of assessee. [S. 260A]

Palak Khatuja v. UOI (2021) 438 ITR 622/ 205 DTR 233/ 322 CTR 417 / ( 2022) 284 Taxman 27 (Chhattisgarh) (HC) / Manisha Khatuja v UOI (2021) 438 ITR 622/ 205 DTR 233/ 322 CTR 417 (Chhattisgarh) (HC) /Bharti Khatuja v UOI (2021) 438 ITR 622/ 205 DTR 233/ 322 CTR 417 (Chhattisgarh) (HC)/ Guruteg Bahadur Rice Mill v ACIT (2022) 440 ITR 233 (Chhattisgarh) (HC) www.itatonline.org/Anant Rice Industries v.UOI ( 2021 ) 439 ITR 275/ 283 Taxman 132 (Chhattisgarh) (HC) Anant Rice Industries v.UOI ( 2021 ) 283 Taxman 132 (Chhattisgarh) (HC)/Prashant Sharma v. UOI ( 2021 ) 283 Taxman 202 (Chhattisgarh) (HC)/Sanjay Agarwal v .PCIT ( 2022) 285 Taxman 576 (Chhattisgarh) (HC) Sanjay Agarwal v .PCIT ( 2022) 285 Taxman 576 (Chhattisgarh) (HC)Editorial : Refer, UOI v. Ashsih Agarwal (2022) 444 ITR 1/ 213 DTR 217/ 326 CTR 473/ 286 Taxman 183 (SC) , notices issued by the Assessing Officers under section 148 shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and to be treated as show¬ cause notices in terms of Section 148A(b) of the Act -The Assessing Officers shall, within 30 days from 04-05-2022, provide the information and material relied upon so that the assessees can reply to the notices within two weeks thereafter- Decision to apply to all such notices quashed by High Courts throughout Country Editorial : Refer, UOI v. Ashsih Agarwal (2022) 444 ITR 1/ 213 DTR 217/ 326 CTR 473/ 286 Taxman 183 (SC) , notices issued by the Assessing Officers under section 148 shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and to be treated as show¬ cause notices in terms of Section 148A(b) of the Act -The Assessing Officers shall, within 30 days from 04-05-2022, provide the information and material relied upon so that the assessees can reply to the notices within two weeks thereafter- Decision to apply to all such notices quashed by High Courts throughout Country

S. 148: Reassessment -Notice – Constitutional Validity – Issued between April 01, 2021 to June 30, 2021 – Without following S. 148A – Conducting inquiry , providing opportunity before issue of notice under section 148 – Taxation and other Law (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 and subsequent notifications – held Constitutionally Valid. [ S. 147,148A, Art, 226 ]

Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd. v. DCIT ( 2021) 205 DTR 209 ( Mum) ( Trib) www.itatonline .org

S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arm’s length price – CUP method -Interest-free debt funding of an overseas company in the nature of a special purpose vehicle interest-free debt funding of an overseas company in the nature of a special purpose vehicle – Cannot be compared with loan simpliciter – Cannot be subjected to arm’s length price . [ S. 92A, 92B ]

ADIT (IT ) v. Asia Today Limited. ( Mum) ( Trib) www.itatonline .org

S. 9(1)(i): Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Change of domicile from British Virgin Islands to Mauritius- – Entitle to benefits of India-Mauritius DTAA – Dependent agency permanent establishment ( DAPE ) – As long as an agent is paid an arm’s length remuneration for the services rendered, nothing survives for taxation in the hands of the dependent agency permanent establishment- DTAA- India – Mauritius [ Art , 5(4), 7(2) ] S. 9(1)(i): Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Change of domicile from British Virgin Islands to Mauritius- – Entitle to benefits of India-Mauritius DTAA – Dependent agency permanent establishment ( DAPE ) – As long as an agent is paid an arm’s length remuneration for the services rendered, nothing survives for taxation in the hands of the dependent agency permanent establishment- DTAA- India – Mauritius [ Art , 5(4), 7(2) ]

Techknoweledgy Interactive Partners P. Ltd. v. ITO (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record – Ex -parte order was passed 30 -3 -2010 – Order was not served on the assessee – The assessee came to know the passing of order on the issue of TRO notice dated 21 -1 2020 – The order was down loaded from the Official website of the ITAT and Miscellaneous application was filed with in six months of date of downloading of the order – The limitation period to be counted from the date of communication or knowledge , actual or constructive – Miscellaneous application was allowed- Ex parte order was recalled and Registry was directed to fix the appeal for hearing on merit . [ S. 254 ( 1), ITAT R. 24 ]

Slum Rehabilitation Authority v. UOI (2021) 436 ITR 172 / 200 DTR 9 / 278 Taxman 315 / 323 CTR 637(Bom.)(HC)

S. 254(2A) : Appellate Tribunal-Stay-Stay-Justified in imposing condition upon assessee to pay Rs. 20 crores for granting stay against outstanding demand of Rs. 269.96 crores. [S. 220, Art. 226)