S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment –Failure to file form No 29B -Return filed on the advice of Chartered Accountant – Levy of penalty is held to be not justified .[ S.115JB ]
Vinay Autoparts P. Ltd. v. ITO (2020) 187 DTR 398 (Mad) (HC)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment –Failure to file form No 29B -Return filed on the advice of Chartered Accountant – Levy of penalty is held to be not justified .[ S.115JB ]
Vinay Autoparts P. Ltd. v. ITO (2020) 187 DTR 398 (Mad) (HC)S. 245I : Settlement Commission – Order – Conclusive -Income decalred was more than 100 times of returned income – Petition was accepted – Writ petition was filed by the recenue for reopeing of the order passed – Dismissing the petition the Court held that as a policy matter, Revenue is not to prolong litigations but bring finality, particularly when amount of Revenue involved is not more than two crores [S.245D(4), Art ,226 ]
CIT v. ITSC (2020) 195 DTR 41 / 317 CTR 579 (Pat.) (HC)S. 245D : Settlement Commission -Failure of revenue to communicate ex-parte order of stay – Order passed by the Settlement Commission admitting the petition Directed to pass final order with in – Writ petition of revenue was dismissed. [ S.245AB , 245C ,245D(2C() Art , 226 ]
CIT v. ITSC (2020) 188 DTR 244 / 316 CTR 796 (Mad) (HC)S. 245D : Settlement Commission –Limitation Application filed by the assessee is barred by limitation – Writ petition dismissed .[ S.245D(4), 245D(6B), Art, 226 ]
Jay kumar Singh v. PCIT (2020) 187 DTR 283 / 313 CTR 609 (MP )(HC)S. 226 : Collection and recovery – Stay -Penalty demand – Collected more than 20% of penalty in dispute – Revenue is directed to refund the excess of 20% collected by the revenue [ Art .226 ]
Tata Telle Services Ltd v. PCT (2020) 196 DTR 145 / 317 CTR 841 (Delhi) (HC)S. 201 : Deduction at source – Failure to deduct or pay – Covid -19 – Notices withdrawn – Proceedings dropped [ S. 201(1)(IA), Art , 226 ]
BT India P. Ltd. v. ITO (2020) 188 DTR 58 / 315 CTR 341 (Delhi)(HC)S. 158BE : Block assessment – Time limit – Prohibitory order -Last panchanama- Prohibitory order does not extend the limitation – Order of Tribunal is affirmed . [ S.132 , 158BC ]
CIT v. Pushupati Granites P. Ltd. (2020) 188 DTR 109/316 CTR 663 (Bom) (HC)S. 158BC : Block assessment – Undisclosed income –After examining the details the Tribunal deleted the addition on facts – No question of law [ S.158BB(1), 260A]
PCIT v. Sunil M. Thakkar (2020) 317 CTR 262 (Bom)(HC)S. 148 : Reassessment – Notice issued u/s 92CA based on the reassment notice was challenged as the objection to reassment notice was not disposed off – Directed to dispose the objection and proceedings u/s 92CA was stayed [S. 92CA, 148, Art , 226 ]
Essilor India P. Ltd v. ACIT (2020) 187 DTR 430 / 315 CTR 199 (Karn) (HC)S. 147 : Reassessment –Failure to deduct tax at source- No failure to disclose material facts – Reassessment is bad ib law .[ S.40(a)(ia), 148 Art , 226 ]
Nielsen (India) P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2020) 187 DTR 451 (Bom) (HC)