Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


G. Ramkumar v. DY. CIT (2021) 280 Taxman 143 (Mad.)(HC) Vinay Kumar Maheswari v. ITO (2021) 280 Taxman 32 (Mad.)(HC)

The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.

S. 4 : Filing of declaration and particulars to be furnished – Appeal with drawn as dismissed .[ S.54B , 260A ]

ACIT v. G.S.L. Education Society (2020) 204 TTJ 17 (UO) (Vishakha)(Trib.)

S. 271AAB : Penalty-Search initiated on or after 1st day of July 2012-undisclosed income-Filed income tax return as per specified date-Penalty leviable only 10 %-Anonymous donations-derived income-purpose for which it is utilized-No need to mention address of donors. [S. 115BBC]

Jamsetji Tata Trust v. ACIT (2020) 208 TTJ 303 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Notice-Not specifying the charge-Quantum appeal admitted before High Court-Penalty was deleted. [S. 274]

Pardeep Kumar Sareen v. ITO (2020) 206 TTJ 12 (UO) (Amritsar) (Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Failure to strike off the irrelevant default in show cause notice-Levy of penalty is held to be not valid. [S. 274(1)]

Darshan Pal Singh Garewal v. Dy. CIT (2020) 196 DTR 1 / 208 TTJ 259 (Amritsar)(Trib.) Malti Gupta v. Dy. CIT (2020) 196 DTR 1 / 208 TTJ 259 (Amritsar) (Trib.) Tejender Singh Sahai v. Dy.CIT (2020) 196 DTR 1 / 208 TTJ 259 (Amritsar)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Notice-Irrelevant words were not strike down by AO-Non application of mind by AO-Notice was bad in law-Levy of penalty is held to be bad in law. [S. 274]

Auro Gold Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2020) 192 DTR 89 / 204 TTJ 1005 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-disallowance u/s.10A-only on presumption basis-Not due to inaccurate information-Penalty was deleted. [S.10A]

ITO v. Tianjin Tianshi India P. Ltd. (2020) 189 DTR 26 / 205 TTJ 107 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Assessee’s good faith cannot be disproved-Transaction is held to be at ALP-Levy of penalty is held to be not justified. [S. 92CA(3)]

Mandeep Singh Dhillon v. PCIT (2020) 207 TTJ 9 (UO) (Amritsar)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Just because Commissioner was not satisfied with manner of verification and investigation-Assessment order held not to be erroneous-Revision order was quashed. [S. 143(3)]

Shell India Markets Private Limited v. CIT (2020) 206 TTJ 405 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-View of the Assessing Officer is in conformity with the view of judgement of High Court-Revision is held to be not valid.[S.144C]

Tanglin Developments Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2020) 194 DTR 65 / 207 TTJ 752 (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Assessing Officer has not examined the issue in proper perspective-Revision is held to be justified. [S. 14A, 115JB]