S.148: Reassessment — Notice -Principal Officer- Notice issued in the name of Principal officer was quashed [ S.2(35(b) , 147 , Art . 226 ]
Suvendra Kumar Pand v .ITO ( 2020) 121 taxmann.com 27 / 276 Taxman 171 ( Mag) (Mad) (HC)S.148: Reassessment — Notice -Principal Officer- Notice issued in the name of Principal officer was quashed [ S.2(35(b) , 147 , Art . 226 ]
Suvendra Kumar Pand v .ITO ( 2020) 121 taxmann.com 27 / 276 Taxman 171 ( Mag) (Mad) (HC)S. 2(22)(e):Deemed dividend – Amount received from subsidiary company as advance for providing corporate guarantee- Addition cannot be made as deemed dividend .
CIT v. Accel Ltd ( 2020) 429 ITR 36/ 273 Taxman 424/ 118 taxmann.com 103 ( Mad) (HC)S. 2(22)(e):Deemed dividend – Director – No evidence to prove that the advance was in respect of sale of land – Addition as deemed dividend is held to be justified .
Vikram Krishna v. PCIT (2020) 114 taxmann.com 196 ( Delhi) (HC) Editorial: SLP of assessee is dismissed , Vikram Krishna v. PCIT (2020)269 Taxman 477/ 114 taxmann.com 197 (SC)S. 2(22)(e):Deemed dividend – Share holder – Not a shareholder in a company from which loan was received – Loan amount cannot be assessed as deemed dividend
CIT v. Checkpoint Apparel Labelling Solutions ( India ) Ltd ( 2020) 120 taxmann.com 125 ( Mad) (HC)S. 2(22)(e):Deemed dividend – Deposit for purchase of premises – Addition cannot be made as deemed dividend – No question of law .[ S.260A]
PCIT v. Dina S. Shah ( Smt) ( 2020) 117 taxmann.com 100 ( Bom) (HC)S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend—Share application money received by companies from other companies—Additions cannot be made as deemed dividend.
CIT v. Vikas Oberoi (2017) 396 ITR 215 / ( 2020) 115 taxmann.com 260 (Bom.) (HC) Editorial : SLP is dismissed due to low tax effect ,CIT v. Vikas Oberoi (2017) 393 ITR 74 (St.)/ (2020) 115 taxmann.com 261 /272 Taxmann.188 (SC)Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act , 2020
S. 4: Filing of declaration and particulars to be furnished – Disputed tax – Pendency of Appeal before High Court – Permission to withdraw the appeal was granted –Given liberty to restore the appeal in the event the ultimate decision is taken on the declaration is against the assessee. [ S.260A ]
Bhimaas Engineering and Projects Pvt Ltd v. Dy CIT ( 2021) 430 ITR 519 ( Mad) (HC) Ind Mark Properties P .Ltd v. ACIT ( 2021) 430 ITR 500 ( Mad) (HC)Advocates Act , 1961
S: 34 : Power of High Courts to make rules- Punishment of Advocates for misconduct – Independent Bar and Independent Bench form the backbone of the democracy – The Legal profession cannot be equated with any other traditional professions -It is not commercial in nature and is noble one considering the nature of duties to be performed and its impact on society – The role of a lawyer is indispensable in the system of delivery of justice – He is bound by the professional ethics and to maintain the high standard . [ S. 9, 33, 34 ,35, 37 , Constitution of India , Art , 32, 226, Madras High Court Rules , 1970 Rules, 14A, 14B, 14C , 14D ]
R. Muthukrishnan v. Registrar General High Court of Judicature at Madras ( 20190 16 SCC 407Railways Act , 1989
S. 20D: Hearing of objections -Opportunity of being heard – Substantive right – Natural Justice -Audi Alteram Partem – Not mere formality – Until the order is communicated to the person affected by it , it cannot be regarded as anything more than being provisional in character [ Constitution of India , Art, 14, 19 , 300A Land Acquisition Act , 1894, S. 5A ]
S. 244A : Refund – Interest on refunds – Un paid amount of tax the assessee entitle to interest this would not amount to granting interest on interest . [ S.244A(1) (b) ]
Garsim Industries Ltd v .DCIT ( 2021) BCAJ – January -P. 47 ( Mum) (Trib)