Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


CIT(TDS) v. Vodafone Cellular Ltd. (2021)131 taxmann.com 191 ( Bom) (HC) Editorial : Notice is issued in SLP filed by the revenue , CIT(TDS) v. Vodafone Cellular Ltd. (2021) 283 Taxman 292 (SC)

S. 194H : Deduction at source – Commission or brokerage – Sale of prepaid SIM cards to distributors – Discounts given by assessee-telecommunication company on sale of prepaid SIM cards to distributors- Not liable to deduct tax at source

Rohan Developers Pvt. Ltd v. ITO (IT) / ( 2022) 211 DTR 184 (Bom) (HC) www.itatonline.org

S. 195: Deduction at source – Non-resident – Lower deduction of tax – Indexation – Binding precedent – Order of Tribunal is binding on lower Authorities – Capital gains – Cost of acquisition of the property in the hands of seller is deemed to be the cost for which the said property was acquired by previous owner – Excess tax paid by the petitioner was directed to be refunded with interest [ S. 2(29A) 2(42A) 45, 48, 49(1)(ii), 55(2)(b)(ii), 195 (2), 244A(1)(b), Art 226]

Tata Sons Limited v. Dy.CIT (Bom) (HC)) www.itatonline.org

S.147: Reassessment – After the expiry of four years – No failure to disclose material facts – Change of opinion – Capital gains or business income – Sale of shares – Reassessment proceedings are quashed. [ S. 28(i), 45, 148, 154, Art 226 ]

Nirmal Bnag Securities Pvt Ltd v. ACIT (Bom) (HC) www.itatonline.org

S.147: Reassessment – After the expiry of four years – No failure to disclose material facts – Information based on search of third party – Reason recorded not indicated anywhere or any stretch of imagination the income has escaped assessment – Non application of mind by the sanctioning authority – Observed that the Assessing Officers will record better reasons for reopening and the Authority granting approval will also apply their mind sincerely before granting approval – Re assessment proceedings was quashed [ S. 148, 151, Art 226 ]

CIT v. Al Ameen Educational Trust ( 2018 )254 Taxman 402 ( Ker ) (HC) Editorial : Al Ameen Educational Trust v. CIT ( 2021) 283 Taxman 285 (SC). SLP is dismissed as withdrawn as the assessee proposed to avail the benefit under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishaws Act 2020

S.269SS: Acceptance of loans and deposits -Penalty Failure to prove reasonable cause – Penalty order was affirmed – Order of Tribunal is reversed [ S. 271D, 273B ]

Raman Krishna Kumar v. DCIT (2021) 439 ITR 521 /131 taxmann.com 341 / (2022) 284 Taxman 108 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 276CC : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to furnish return of income-Failure to file the return on due date-Wilful attempt to evade tax-Presumption of culpable mind-Burden is on the assessee to prove that the failure was not wilful. [S. 276C, 278E, Form No 26AS, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S. 482]

Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2022) 441 ITR 25/ 211 DTR 227/ 325 CTR 545 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 215 : Interest payable by assessee-Waiver of interest-Regular assessment means first order / original assessment-Delay not attributable to the assessee the interest is not leviable. [S. 139(8), 143(3), 144, 215(3) ITR, 1962, Rule, 40(1)]

Implenia Services and Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (Bom.)(HC) (UR)

S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Notice issued to non-existing entity-Notice invalid-Notice could not be corrected u/s. 292B of the Act. [S. 292B, Art. 226]

Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Ltd. v. DCIT (2021) 283 Taxman 98 (2022) 211 DTR 63/ 325 CTR 212 (Karn.)(HC).Editorial: Notice issued in SLP filed by the Revenue , Dy. CIT v. Karnataka State Co-op Apex Bank Ltd. (2022) 287 Taxman 165/ 114 CCH 357 (SC)

S. 148 : Reassessment-Assessment processed u/s. 143(1)-Fresh claim of loss in reassessment proceedings-Held to be allowable-Deletion of Explanation to section 143 from 1-6-1999, intimation under section 143(1) ceases to be an order for purposes of section 264. [S. 143(1), 147, 264]

Dhiren Anantraj Modi v. ITO (The Chamber’s Journal-January-P. 73 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Within four years-Reasons based on erroneous and incorrect facts-Non application of mind-Notice was quashed. [S. 143(1), 148, 151 Art. 226]