Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Vodafone India Services Ltd. v. ACIT (2021) / 212 TTJ 760 / 204 DTR 89 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 254(2A) : Appellate Tribunal-Stay-Demand on account of ALP adjustment for assignment of call or put options vested by assessee to its Mauritius based group concern, inasmuch as it put said group concern at an undue advantage of buying Vodafone India shares at a price much below market rate without any corresponding benefit to assessee-Stay granted on impugned tax demand subject to deposit of 20 per cent tax and furnishing of corporate guarantee from AE. [S. 220]

Sale Mohammed Padamsee & CO. v. PCIT, (2021) 213 TTJ 895 / 206 DTR 102 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-The Tribunal has consciously adjudicated a case instead of referring it to a special bench as desired by the assessee, it is not open to him to try achieving the same under the garb of 254(2) proceedings-Miscellaneous application is rejected.

Sanjay Matai v. ITO (2021) 91 ITR 597 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Power-Additional evidence-Non-consideration of additional evidence placed on record would cause prejudice to assessee-Commissioner (Appeals) to admit additional evidence. [R. 46A, ITAT R, 29]

Sanjay Matai v. ITO (2021) 91 ITR 597 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Power-Additional evidence-Non-consideration of additional evidence placed on record would cause prejudice to assessee-Commissioner (Appeals) to admit additional evidence. [R. 46A, ITATR, 29]

N. R. Agarwal Industries Ltd. v. ACIT (2021)91 ITR 503 (Surat) (Trib.)

S. 251 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Power of enhancement of income-Commissioner (Appeals) cannot introduce new source of income-Assessment to be confined to items of income which were subject matter of original assessment. [S.. 251(1)(a)]

Energy Infratech Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2021) 210 TTJ 309 / 199 DTR 145 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 251 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Powers-Business expenditure-Confirmed by the CIT(A) by adopting different reasoning than that of Assessing Officer-Order set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh order as per law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing [S. 37(1),40(a), 254(1)]

ACIT v. Globus Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 213 TTJ 101 / 204 DTR 249 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 251 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Powers-Orders passed by CIT(A) after compulsory retirement as well as in case of assessee not covered within his jurisdiction are illegal, bad in law and non-est since it issue goes to the root of the matter-Orders set aside to the files of the respective Jurisdictional CIT(A) to decide afresh in accordance with law. [S. 120]

DCIT v. N E Television Network Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 91 ITR 59 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Cryptic order-Audit of accounts-Business-Unexplained trade receivables-Matter remanded. [S.44AB]

Sandvik Mining & Construction Tools AB v. ACIT (2021) 214 TTJ 523 / 63 CCH 440 / 207 DTR 115 (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 246A : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Appealable orders-Draft assessment order-Appeal is not maintainable. [S. 144C(1), 144C(13)]

Sandvik Mining & Construction Tools AB v. ACIT (2021) 214 TTJ 523 / 63 CCH 440 / 207 DTR 115 (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 246A : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Appealable orders-Draft assessment order-Appeal is not maintainable. [S. 144C(1), 144C(13)]