Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Goldman Sachs Investments (Mauritius) Ltd. v. DCIT ( 2020 ) 194 DTR 329/ 207 TTJ 913 (2021) 187 ITD 184/ (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 234C : Interest – Deferment of advance tax – Tax deductible at source – Income which is subject to such deduction and is taken into account in computing total income of assessee.

Goldman Sachs Investments (Mauritius) Ltd. v. DCIT ( 2020) 194 DTR 329/ 207 TTJ 913 / (2021) 187 ITD 184/ (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 74 : Losses – Capital gains – Carried forward losses- Capital losses brought forward from earlier years pertaining to source of income that was exempt from tax was allowed to be carried forward to subsequent years- DTAA- India – Mauritius [ S.9(1)(i), 74(1)(a), 90(2) ,144C(5),Art . 13 ]

Ace Steel Fab (P.) Ltd. Kashyap & Co. v. DCIT (2021) 87 ITR 52 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 271AAA : Penalty-Addition made on ad-hoc basis based on average gross profit rate, which does not relate directly to any undisclosed income unearthed during search-Penalty not sustainable. [S. 132, 133A]

Dy.CIT v. Anurag Dalmia (2021) 87 ITR 51 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Addition on basis of which penalty levied deleted.

Balvinder Kumar v. PCIT (2021) 187 ITD 454 / 212 TTJ 391/ 203 DTR 155 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-limited scrutiny-No jurisdiction to go beyond reason for which the case was selected for limited scrutiny-Revision to consider other aspects is held to be without jurisdiction. [S. 143(3)]

Lokesh M. v. PCIT (2021) 187 ITD 342 (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-On the date of transfer more than one residential house-Deduction allowed without verification-Revision order was set aside and directed the AO to pass the order in accordance with law. [S. 54, 54F]

Provimi Animal Nutrition India Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2021) 187 ITD 214 / 85 ITR 9 (SN) (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Non furnishing of approval-Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 35(2AB), R. 6(7A)(b)]

Gunjan Garg v. JCIT (2021) 187 ITD 467 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Short term capital gain-Settlement Commission-Issue considered by the Settlement Commission-Revision order will be without jurisdiction. [S. 45, 245C(1), 245D(4), 245I]

Agro Tech Foods Ltd. v. DCIT (2021) 187 ITD 763 / 211 TTJ 715/ 201 DTR 297 (Hyd.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Order of Transfer pricing Officer-Part of assessment record-Can be revised. [S. 92CA]

Peerless General Finance & Investment Company Ltd. v. DCIT (2021) 87 ITR 281 / 211 TTJ 823 / 203 DTR 103 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Order of Assessing Officer was in consonance with the view taken by the Tribunal, revision order was quashed. [S. 2(14), 2(29A)(2)(47), 251]