Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


E. Sankaran v. ITO (2021) 279 Taxman 180 (Mad.)(HC) PCIT v. P. Kesarimal Jain (Mrs.) (2021) 279 Taxman 182 (Mad.)(HC) PCIT v. Anil Kumar Jain (2021) 279 Taxman 251 (Mad.)(HC) Andal Arumugam (Smt.) v. ACIT (2021) 279 Taxman 259 (Mad.) (HC) CIT v. Bidam Kawar (Smt.) (2021) 279 Taxman 426 (Mad.)(HC) S. Manoharan v. ACIT (2021) 279 Taxman 226 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 4 : Filing of declaration and particulars to be furnished-Appeal with drawn as dismissed-Liberty is given to restore appeal in event ultimate decision to be taken on declaration filed was in favour of assessee. [S. 260A]

Palak Khatuja v. UOI (2021) 438 ITR 622/ 205 DTR 233/ 322 CTR 417 / ( 2022) 284 Taxman 27 (Chhattisgarh) (HC) / Manisha Khatuja v UOI (2021) 438 ITR 622/ 205 DTR 233/ 322 CTR 417 (Chhattisgarh) (HC) /Bharti Khatuja v UOI (2021) 438 ITR 622/ 205 DTR 233/ 322 CTR 417 (Chhattisgarh) (HC)/ Guruteg Bahadur Rice Mill v ACIT (2022) 440 ITR 233 (Chhattisgarh) (HC) www.itatonline.org/Anant Rice Industries v.UOI ( 2021 ) 439 ITR 275/ 283 Taxman 132 (Chhattisgarh) (HC) Anant Rice Industries v.UOI ( 2021 ) 283 Taxman 132 (Chhattisgarh) (HC)/Prashant Sharma v. UOI ( 2021 ) 283 Taxman 202 (Chhattisgarh) (HC)/Sanjay Agarwal v .PCIT ( 2022) 285 Taxman 576 (Chhattisgarh) (HC) Sanjay Agarwal v .PCIT ( 2022) 285 Taxman 576 (Chhattisgarh) (HC)Editorial : Refer, UOI v. Ashsih Agarwal (2022) 444 ITR 1/ 213 DTR 217/ 326 CTR 473/ 286 Taxman 183 (SC) , notices issued by the Assessing Officers under section 148 shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and to be treated as show¬ cause notices in terms of Section 148A(b) of the Act -The Assessing Officers shall, within 30 days from 04-05-2022, provide the information and material relied upon so that the assessees can reply to the notices within two weeks thereafter- Decision to apply to all such notices quashed by High Courts throughout Country Editorial : Refer, UOI v. Ashsih Agarwal (2022) 444 ITR 1/ 213 DTR 217/ 326 CTR 473/ 286 Taxman 183 (SC) , notices issued by the Assessing Officers under section 148 shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and to be treated as show¬ cause notices in terms of Section 148A(b) of the Act -The Assessing Officers shall, within 30 days from 04-05-2022, provide the information and material relied upon so that the assessees can reply to the notices within two weeks thereafter- Decision to apply to all such notices quashed by High Courts throughout Country

S. 148: Reassessment -Notice – Constitutional Validity – Issued between April 01, 2021 to June 30, 2021 – Without following S. 148A – Conducting inquiry , providing opportunity before issue of notice under section 148 – Taxation and other Law (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 and subsequent notifications – held Constitutionally Valid. [ S. 147,148A, Art, 226 ]

Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd. v. DCIT ( 2021) 205 DTR 209 ( Mum) ( Trib) www.itatonline .org

S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arm’s length price – CUP method -Interest-free debt funding of an overseas company in the nature of a special purpose vehicle interest-free debt funding of an overseas company in the nature of a special purpose vehicle – Cannot be compared with loan simpliciter – Cannot be subjected to arm’s length price . [ S. 92A, 92B ]

ADIT (IT ) v. Asia Today Limited. ( Mum) ( Trib) www.itatonline .org

S. 9(1)(i): Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Change of domicile from British Virgin Islands to Mauritius- – Entitle to benefits of India-Mauritius DTAA – Dependent agency permanent establishment ( DAPE ) – As long as an agent is paid an arm’s length remuneration for the services rendered, nothing survives for taxation in the hands of the dependent agency permanent establishment- DTAA- India – Mauritius [ Art , 5(4), 7(2) ] S. 9(1)(i): Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Change of domicile from British Virgin Islands to Mauritius- – Entitle to benefits of India-Mauritius DTAA – Dependent agency permanent establishment ( DAPE ) – As long as an agent is paid an arm’s length remuneration for the services rendered, nothing survives for taxation in the hands of the dependent agency permanent establishment- DTAA- India – Mauritius [ Art , 5(4), 7(2) ]

Techknoweledgy Interactive Partners P. Ltd. v. ITO (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record – Ex -parte order was passed 30 -3 -2010 – Order was not served on the assessee – The assessee came to know the passing of order on the issue of TRO notice dated 21 -1 2020 – The order was down loaded from the Official website of the ITAT and Miscellaneous application was filed with in six months of date of downloading of the order – The limitation period to be counted from the date of communication or knowledge , actual or constructive – Miscellaneous application was allowed- Ex parte order was recalled and Registry was directed to fix the appeal for hearing on merit . [ S. 254 ( 1), ITAT R. 24 ]

Slum Rehabilitation Authority v. UOI (2021) 436 ITR 172 / 200 DTR 9 / 278 Taxman 315 / 323 CTR 637(Bom.)(HC)

S. 254(2A) : Appellate Tribunal-Stay-Stay-Justified in imposing condition upon assessee to pay Rs. 20 crores for granting stay against outstanding demand of Rs. 269.96 crores. [S. 220, Art. 226)

PCIT v. Mahalingam (2021) 278 Taxman 254 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Duties-Order passed in a cryptic and cavalier manner-Matter was remanded back to Tribunal. [S. 40(a)(ia), 194I]

PCIT v. EDS Electronics Data Systems India (P) Ltd. (2021) 278 Taxman 19 / 319 CTR 705 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Duties-Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Order passed in a cryptic and cavalier manner-Matter was remanded back to Tribunal. [S. 92C]

CIT v. Sri Vasavi Gold & Bullion (P.) Ltd. (2021) 278 Taxman 352 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 249 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Form of appeal and limitation-e-filing of appeals-Right of appeal is a statutory and valuable right and such right should not be denied on technical ground. [S. 246A]

Seema Jain v. PCIT (2021) 278 Taxman 48 / 201 DTR 124 / 320 CTR 507 (MP)(HC)

S. 239 : Refund-Limitation-Advance tax paid-Excess amount paid-Not entitle to refund of the amount before completion of previous year. [S. 119(2)(b), Rule, 41, Art. 226]