Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


CIT(LTU) v. Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. (2020) 427 ITR 166 / 227 Taxman 224 /192 DTR 376 (Karn)(HC)

S. 5 : Scope of total income – Accrual of income — Cash compensatory assistance and duty drawback —Not sanctioned to assessee during relevant year by customs authorities — Income did not accrue- Not taxable. [ S.145 ]

State Bank Of India v. Add. CIT (2020)78 ITR 636 ( Bang) (Trib)/State Bank of India v .Add. CIT (2020) 80 ITR 11 (SN)(Bang) (Trib)

S. 271C : Penalty – Failure to deduct at source -Leave travel allowance – Reasonable cause -Penalty not warranted[ S. 10 (5) , 133A ,273B ]

United Tropicon Veneers P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 78 ITR 299( Cochin) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Not representing before CIT (A) – Matter remanded to CIT (A) [S. 250 ,254 (1) ]

Risha Tour And Travels v. ITO (2020) 78 ITR 77 (Luck ) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Notice not specifying charge -Natural justice — Show-cause notice void ab initio- Levy of penalty is not valid [ S.274 ]

Rajendra Kumar Khandelwal v. Dy. CIT (2020)78 ITR 252( Jaipur) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment -Not specifying the charge- Notice vague — Levy of penalty not sustainable.[ S.274 ]

Meenakshi Ammal Trust v .ACIT (2020)78 ITR 138 / 186 DTR 257/203 TTJ 785 (Chennai) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Failure to furnish details of persons from whom donations received — Not a case of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income — Penalty not leviable . [ S. 11, 132 ]

Shugan Chandra Kothari Trust v. CIT(E) (2020)78 ITR 340 ( Delhi) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – -Fees from students -Explanation was furnished at the original assessment proceedings – Revision is held to be not valid . [ S.2(15)),12A,143(3) ]

Seth Madan Lal Palriwala Foundation v. CIT (E) (2020)78 ITR 436 / 196 DTR 169( Delhi) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Source of funds from abroad —Commissioner not conducting enquiry to find order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue — Revision not valid.

Maithan Steel and Power Ltd. v. PCIT (2020)78 ITR 532 / 208 TTJ 334(Kol) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Prior period income – Disclosure before Settlement Commission —Neither erroneous nor causing prejudice to interests of revenue – Revision is held to be not valid . [ S.43B 115JB ]

SL Lumax Ltd. v. PCIT (2020) 78 ITR 1 (SN) ( Chennai ) (Trib )

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Business expenditure – Provision for warranty – Record includes all documents available with department even for earlier years- Revision is held to be not valid. [ S .92CA(4),144C(3), 263(1b) ]