S. 127 : Power to transfer cases – Assigning of reasons in notice — Search proceedings showing that assessee residing in Nagaland and had financial interests in Kerala — Transfer for purposes of co-ordinated investigation — Cogent and credible reasons assigned in notice — Notice sent to registered office in Kerala and received by Assessee — Order for transfer valid .[S. 132, ITR 127, Art, 226 ]
Varun Raj Pillai v. PCIT (2022) 440 ITR 47 / 211 DTR 45/ (2022) 325 CTR 45/285 Taxman 242(Gauhati )( HC)/Rajendra Pillai .M.K. v.PCIT ( 2022) 2022) 440 ITR 47 / 211 DTR 45/ 325 CTR 45/285 Taxman 242 (Gauhati )( HC)/Valsala Raj Pillai (Smt) v.PCIT ( 2022) 2022) 440 ITR 47 / 211 DTR 45/ 325 CTR 45/285 Taxman 242 (Gauhati )( HC) Editorial : Decision of single judge in M.K. Rajendran Pillai v. PCIT ( 2020) 421 ITR 274 ( Gauhati ) (HC) is affirmed .
Digest of case laws
Online digest of latest case laws
This Digest of case laws is prepared by KSA Legal and AIFTP from judgements reported in BCAJ, CTR, DTR, ITD, ITR, ITR (Trib), Chamber's Journal, SOT, Taxman, TTJ, BCAJ, ACAJ, www.itatonline.org and other journals
Click here to download the pdf versions of the Digest of case laws S. 80P : Co-operative societies – Society formed for enabling financial and social welfare of toddy tappers and workers for tapping and selling toddy — Could not be considered co-operative society engaged in collective disposal of labour of its members — Eligibility of assessee for deduction as society engaged in marketing of agricultural produce grown by its members — Matter remitted to Tribunal.[S.80P(2)(a)(vi) ]
Hosdurg Range Kallu Chethu Thozhilali Vyavasaya Sahakarana Sangham v. CIT (2022) 440 ITR 65 / 285 Taxman 133 (Ker) (HC)S. 37(1) : Business expenditure –Capital or revenue – Ware house business – Expenditure for raising floor height of Godown – Expenditure incurred to run the business profitably is revenue expenditure.
Jetha Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2022) 440 ITR 524 / 209 DTR 201/ 324 CTR 326 / 286 Taxman 504 (Bom) ( HC)S. 143(3): Assessment – Order passed in the name of non-existent amalgamating entity – valid. [ Companies Act, 1956, S. 394 , 481 ]
S. 143(3): Assessment – Order passed in the name of non-existent amalgamating entity – valid. [ Companies Act, 1956, S. 394 , 481 ]
PCIT v. Mahagun Realtors Private Limited (SC) www.itatonline .orgBlack Money ( Undisclosed Foreign Income & Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act , 2015.
S. 43: Penalty for failure to furnish return of income an information , or furnish inaccurate particulars about an asset (including interest in any entity )located outside India- Foreign Bank Account – Signatory for late Mother-Amount was donated to the Charity –Not beneficial owner – Mere no disclosure is not valid ground for levy of penalty – Deletion of penalty was affirmed . [ S.10(3), Income -tax Act , 1961 132(4) 139 , 153A]
Addl. CIT v. Leena Gandhi Tiwari (2022) 216 TTJ 905 /96 ITR 384 / 212 DTR 105 ( Mum) ( Trib) www.itatonline .orgS. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Tax audit disclosing the disallowance of expenses under section 43B-Inadvertently left out while computing the income-Penalty levied was deleted. [S. 43B]
Core Metal Krafts Ltd. v. ACIT (2021) 92 ITR 379 (Chd.)(Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Tax deducted at source-Limited scrutiny assessment-Detail verified-No loss to revenue-Revision order was quashed. [S. 143(2), 143(3)]
Trio Trend Exports P. Ltd. v. PCIT (2021) 92 ITR 18 (SN) (Kol.)(Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Share capital issue of shares at premium-Addition on presumption-Revision was held to be not valid. [S. 56(2)(viib), R. 11UA(2)(b)]
Dada Ganapati Gur Products Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2021) 92 ITR 408 / 214 TTJ 908 (Hyd.)(Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Valuation report from Merchant Banker-Fair market value higher than price at which shares issued-Order not erroneous. [S. 56(2)(viib), R. 11UA(2)]
Vinayaka Microns (India) P. Ltd. v. PCIT (2021)92 ITR 5 (SN) (Jaipur)(Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Revision based on proposal of Assessing Officer recommending a revision is illegal. [S. 143(3)]
Alfa Laval Lund Ab v. CIT(IT) (2021) 92 ITR 4 (SN) / (2022) 210 DTR 313 (Pune)(Trib.)