Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Enanalloor Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. ITO (2020) 317 CTR 191 (Ker) (HC)

S. 133 : Power to call for information – Authorities – ITO (Intelligence ) is an authority to issue notice under section 133(6) to the assessee Co -Operative banks prior to CBDT Notification No 77 of 2014 dt 10 -12 -2014 [ S. 90, 90A, 120, 124, 133(6), 272A(2)(c)]

CIT v . Sri Parameswari Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. (2020) 196 DTR 206 (Mad) (HC )

S. 40(a)(ia): Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source – Belated filing of form No .26Q- Matter remanded to Assessing Officer – No substantial question of law [ S.194C(7) ]

CIT v. Authority for Advance Ruling (2020) 275 Taxman 391/ 194 DTR 1/ 316 CTR 673 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 245R : Advance rulings – Mere issue of notice under section 143 (2) is not an bar for approaching the AAR- Writ petition of revenue is dismissed .[ S.143 (2), 245R(2) ]

Bharat Mehta (Deceased) Through LR Mehul Mehta (Dr.) v. Dy. CIT (2020) 317 CTR 759 (Mad) (HC)

S. 158BE : Block assessment – Time limit – Panchanama – Approval was taken -Notice u/s 143 (2) was issued – Search in more than one premises – More than one Panachnama which state that search continued and prohibitory order was issued – Vacation of prohibitory order has to be considered as conclusion of search- Order is not barred by limitation . [ S. 132(3) , 143 (2) , 158BG , Art , 226 ]

Mohan Ravi v. ITO (2020) 195 DTR 113 (Mad)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment – Reasons communicated -Participated in the proceedings – If relevant germane reasons exist and have been communicated to the assessee that is enough for reassessment proceedings to hold the field- Writ is not maintainable [ S.148 , Art , 226 ]

Travel Designer India P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2020) 269 Taxman 429/191 DTR 310 / 315 CTR 800 (Guj.)(HC).Editorial : Notice in SLP filed by the revenue, Notice issued in SLP filed by revenue , Dy. CIT v. Travel Designer India (P) Ltd. (2021) 283 Taxman 9 (SC)

S. 143(2) : Assessment – Notice – Barred by limitation -Defective return – On removal of defect the return would relate back to the date of filing of the original return- Period of limitation has to be computed from the filing of original return – Order is bad in law [S.139 , Art . 226 ]

CIT v. Visual Graphics Computing Services India Pvt Ltd (2020) 274 Taxman 481/ 195 DTR 397/ (2021) 318 CTR 586 ( Mad)(HC)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arm’s length price – Comparables- Different financial years – Rejection of comparable- Question of fact – Exempted income – Disallowance of expenses – Question of fact [ S.260A ]

PCIT v. Solar Turbines India Ltd (2020) 272 Taxman 268/ 192 DTR 145/ 316 CTR 172 (Bom)(HC) .Editorial : SLP of revenue is dismissed, PCIT v. Solar Turbines India Ltd (2022)285 Taxman 1 (SC)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arm’s length price – Providing market services to Associated enterprises – Deletion of addition is held to be justified – No question of law [ S.260A ]

C. Sudarsana Srinivasan (HUF) v. ACIT (2020) 317 CTR 908 (Mad) (HC) C. Venkatachakam (HUF) v .ACIT (2020) 317 CTR 908 (Mad )(HC)

S. 45: Capital gains – Year of taxability – Capital gains rightly taxed in which sale deeds were executed in respect of transfer of undivided share of land in favour of nominees of the Developer- Directed the Assessing Officer to give effect to the orders passed by the Tribunal by modifying the orders for the assessment years 1999-2000 upto 2003-04. [ S. 2(47)(v), 147 ]

Prasad Multi Services (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2020) 423 ITR 542/ 317 CTR 873 (Guj.) (HC)

S. 32 : Depreciation – Cranes used in hiring business- Nomenclature in Motor Vehicle Act can not be test for allowability of depreciation – Entitle depreciation at 30% .