Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Mahadev Cold Storage v. JAO ( 2021 ) 190 ITD 273/ 212 TTJ 801/ 205 DTR 145 ( 2021 ) 190 ITD 273/ 212 TTJ 801/ 205 DTR 145 (Agra ) ( Trib) www.itatonline .org Vinod Thanwerdas v. JAO ( 2021 ) 190 ITD 273/ 212 TTJ 801/ 205 DTR 145 (Agra ) ( Trib) www.itatonline .org

S.43B: Deductions on actual payment – Employee’s contribution -paid before due date of filing of return –Allowable as deduction – Binding Precedent – Faceless assessment -Order of Jurisdictional High Court – binding on AO situated within territorial jurisdiction and respective first appellate authority. [ S. 2 (24)(x), 36 (1)(va), 139 (1), 143 (3) ]

Yerram Venkata Subba Reddy.v. ACIT ( 2020) 196 DTR 41 / 208 TTJ 885/ (2021) 187 ITD 22 (Hyd) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Loss on account of sale of shares – Mere non-mentioning of reasons for allowing said claim of assessee by Assessing Officer would not make assessment order erroneous so as to invoke revision jurisdiction- Unabsorbed depreciation – Sale of land -Difference between stamp value and actual consideration received – Addition is justified – loss on sale of vehicle – Remanded to Assessing Officer . [ S.28 (i),50, 50C , 72, 143 (3) ,170 ]

Interactive Avenues (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT ( 2020) 196 DTR 249// 208 TTJ 945 (2021) 187 ITD 463 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source -Non-resident –Advertisement expenses – Expenditure not claimed as deduction – No disallowance can be made- Matter remanded . [ S .30 to 38, 195 ]

South India Club. v .CIT ( 2020) 194 DTR 320 / 207 TTJ 844/ (2021) 187 ITD 492 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 12AA : Procedure for registration –Trust or institution- Charitable objects- Registration cannot be denied on ground that no activities had been carried out by Trust [ S. 2(15), 11, 12A ]

Om Prakash Agarwal. v. DCIT ( 2020) 194 DTR 199/ 207 TTJ 121 / (2021) 187 ITD 499 (Jaipur) (Trib.)

S. 50C : Capital gains – Full value of consideration – Stamp valuation – Sale consideration more than District level committee rate – Addition is held to be not justified .[ S.45 ] S. 50C : Capital gains – Full value of consideration – Stamp valuation – Sale consideration more than District level committee rate – Addition is held to be not justified .[ S.45 ]

IFFCO E-Bazar Ltd v. ACIT [2021] 85 ITR 38 (SN) (Delhi ) (Trib)

S. 28 (i) : Business loss- Commencement of business — Purchase and sale – A single transaction may constitute business – Business expenditure are allowable and loss is entitle to carry forward . [ S. 2 (13) 37 (1) , 79 ]

Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT ( 2021 ) 434 ITR 1/ 200 DTR 65/ 320 CTR 26/ 280 Taxman 334 /125 taxmann.com 253 ( FB ) (Bom) (HC) www.itatonline.org

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Non-striking off of the irrelevant part while issuing notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act,- Order is bad in law – Assessee must be informed of the grounds of the penalty proceedings only through statutory notice. An omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness. [ S.274 ]

All India Federation of Tax Practitioners v. ITO ( 2021 ) 190 ITD 172 (SMC ) (Mum) (Trib) www.itatonline.org

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes – Assessee is engaged in educational activities to spread education in matters relating to tax laws, other laws and accountancy-Entitle to exemption – Order of CIT (A) denying the exemption was reversed . [ S. 2 (15), 12A, 80G ]

Teleperformance Global Service Pvt Ltd v. ACIT ( 2021 ) 435 ITR 725/ 201 DTR 161/ 281 Taxman 331(Bom)(HC),www.itatonline.org

S. 143 : Assessment – Reassessment – Notice- Reassessment order was passed against an amalgamated company (Non -existing ) company – not procedural defect – Mere participation of the assessee in the assessment proceedings is of no effect as there is no estoppel against law- Such a defect cannot be cured by invoking section 292B – A Writ Petition can be filed in the Bombay High Court against an order passed in Delhi if the assessee is based in Mumbai. The litigant has the right to go to ‘a Court’ where part of cause of action arises. [ S. 147 ,148 , 292B , Art , 226 ]

Tata Communication Ltd. v. UOI (2021)435 ITR 632/ 320 CTR 686/ 281 Taxman 162 / 201 DTR 188 (Bom) (HC),www.itatonline.org

S. 245 : Refund- Set off of refunds against tax remaining payable –
The Dept has not complied with the requirements of s. 245 of the Act- It is difficult to appreciate the stand of the Dept that the order passed by the high court would not cover/operate over the matters and orders passed by the ITAT, Union of India being not a party to the matter- Such a justification from and the approach of, the authorities is difficult to be approved of which is not in fitness of stature, especially of the state department, which is supposed to act like a model litigant- Directed to refund the amount with interest with in four weeks . [ S. 220 (6), Art ,226 ]