Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Bhaskar Roy v. ITO (2022) 193 ITD 668 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 234E : Fee-Default in furnishing the statements-Amendment in section 200A by way of insertion of clause (c) was only with effect from 1-6-2015-Levying late fee for period prior to 1-6-2015 is not valid. [S. 200A]

Bain & Company India (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (TDS) (2022) 193 ITD 787 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 195 : Deduction at source-Non-resident-Income deemed to arise in India-Computer software through EULA/distribution agreement, is not payment of royalty for use of copyright in computer software and, thus, same does not give rise to any income taxable in India-Not liable to deduct tax at source-DTAA-India-USA. [S. 9(1)(vi), Copy Right Act, 1957, S. 14(a), 14(b), 52(1)(aa), Art. 12(4)(b)]

ACIT (IT) v. Viacom18 Media (P.) Ltd. (2022) 193 ITD 716 (Mum.) (Trib.)

S. 195 : Deduction at source-Non-resident-Transponder service fee-Not in nature of royalty in hand of recipient-Not liable to deduct tax at source. [S. 9(1)(vii), 195(2)]

Khyati Chemicals (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (OSD) (2022) 193 ITD 446 (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Unutilisation of MODVAT-Order of Assessing Officer and Commissioner (Appeals) got merged with order of Tribunal-Rejection of rectification application is justified [S. 254(1)]

Dhanesh Kumar Jain v. ACIT (2022) 193 ITD 1 / 220 TTJ 113/ 218 DTR 307 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Interest-Compensation on Agricultural land-Failure to claim statutory deduction-Mistake apparent hence amenable for rectification. [S. 57(iv), 143(1)]

Peninsula Land Ltd. v. DCIT (2022) 193 ITD 366 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 145 : Method of accounting-Real estate business-Percentage completion method-Not justified in rejecting the method of accounting followed by the Assessee.

Cisco Systems Services B.V. v. DCIT(IT) (2022) 193 ITD 809/220 TTJ 378/ 219 DTR 249 (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Draft assessment order with demand notice-Initiating penalty proceeding-Draft assessment order being contrary to provisions of section 144C could not survive in eyes of law. [S. 156, 271(1)(c)]

Shakti Apifoods (P.) Ltd. v. Assessing Officer (2022) 193 ITD 751 (Chd.)(Trib.)

S. 143(3) : Assessment-Provision for gratuity-Disallowed in the return-Addition is held to be not valid. [S. 37(1)]

Pegasus Properties (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT, (2022) 193 ITD 514 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 143(3) : Assessment-Protective assessment-Excess cash recovered from registered office of assessee-No substantive addition was made in hands of any other person-Addition u/s 69A would not survive. [S. 69A, 132]

Palogix Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. v. (2022) 193 ITD 329 (Kol.) (Trib.)

S. 143(3) : Assessment-Charge of income-tax-Order passed by National Company Law Tribunal under section 31 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 has overriding effect over anything inconsistent contained in Income-tax Act and it shall be binding on all respective entities including other stakeholders, which include Central Government, State Government and other local bodies-Matter remanded to the Assessing Officer. [S. 4, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, S 31, 238]