Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Perfecta Lifestyle v. ITO (2021) 90 ITR 689 (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend-Not shareholder of company which had advanced loan to assessee-Loan cannot be treated as deemed dividend.

Kerala State Beverages Manufacturing and Marketing Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 440 ITR 492 / 209 DTR 257/ 324 CTR 209 / 286 Taxman 1(SC) Editorial , review petition is dismissed ,ACIT v. Kerala State Beverages Manufacturing and Marketing Corporation Ltd (2023) 291 Taxman 357 (SC) Editorial : Decision of Kerala High Court partly affirmed and partly reversed . ( 2022) 440 ITR 496 (SC)

S. 40 (a)(iib) :Amounts not deductible- Fee- Tax – Gallonge fee , licence fee and shop rental (KIST ) with respect to EL-9 and E.L -I licence granted will fall with in the purview of section and hence disallowable -Surcharge on Sales tax and turnover tax is not fee or charge hence not disallowable – Interpretation of taxing statutes – Same statute using different terms and expressions – Must be taken to refer to distinct and different things . [ S. 37(1)), Kerala Abkari Act, 1077 (M.E.) S. 18 , Kerala Foreign Liquor Rules , 1953 , R. 15A ]

Ekta Housing Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2021) 89 ITR 56 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 271D : Penalty-Takes or accepts any loan or deposit-Whatsapp messages-Employee and promoter of group-Receipt of cash not proved-Penalty cannot be levied. [S. 269SS]

FCI Asia Pte Ltd. vs. DCIT (2021) 212 TTJ 9 (UO) (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income-Assessee intimated Assessing Officer well in advance of inadvertence of including receipt-Assessing Officer did not specify in notice whether notice is issued for concealing income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. [S. 143(2)]

Villo Noshir Anklesaria (Mrs.) v. ACIT (2021) 89 ITR 31 (SN) (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Disclosing full facts-Levy of penalty is held to be not justified. [S. 54F]

Virendra Singh Bhadauriya v. PCIT (2021) 211 TTJ 452 / 204 DTR 400 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Revision of orders prejudicial to Revenue-Twin conditions to be satisfied-Assessment order cannot be said to be erroneous in law-Revision was quashed. [S. 54F]

Mahendra Singh Dhankar HUF v. ACIT (2021) 212 TTJ 902 / 204 DTR 377 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limited scrutiny-The Revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 cannot be exercised for broadening the scope of jurisdiction that was originally vested with the A.O for limited scrutiny while framing the assessment and enlarging his scope of limited enquiry. [S. 143(3), 147]

Goldmohar Design and Apparel Park Ltd. v. PCIT (2021) 209 TTJ 863 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Depreciation-Lease hold rights-Revision is held to be valid. [S. 32(1)(ii)]

Nimmala Srinivas (HUF) v. ACIT (2021) 89 ITR 10 (SN) (Hyd.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-No finding that the order is erroneous and prejudicial interest of revenue-Revision was held to be not valid-Disallowance of commission was held to be justified-Once the income is accepted in the Hand of HUF the said income cannot be assessed in the hands of individual. [S. 45]

Piyush Mohan Agarwal v. PCIT (2021) 89 ITR 626 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Interest expenditure-Assumption of jurisdiction based on incorrect facts-Revision is held to be in valid. [S. 37(1)]