S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Sales tax subsidy-For enabling to expand or modernize its existing unit-A capital receipt not taxable.
Dy. CIT v. Grasim Industries Ltd. (2020) 83 ITR 1 (SN) (Mum.)(Trib.)S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Sales tax subsidy-For enabling to expand or modernize its existing unit-A capital receipt not taxable.
Dy. CIT v. Grasim Industries Ltd. (2020) 83 ITR 1 (SN) (Mum.)(Trib.)Interpretation of taxing statutes –Precedent – Special leave Petition dismissed in limine- Doctrine of merger is not applicable . [ Constitution ion of India , Art , 141, Maharashtra Employees of private Schools ( Conditions of Service ) Regulation Act , S. 4(1) 16(2) (a) ]
Dhiraj Manoharro Chore v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2020 Bom 65 (FB)S. 271B :Penalty- Failure to get accounts audited -Reasonable cause – May – Levy of penalty is held go be not justified .
Arvind Kumar Arora v. ITO (2020)82 ITR 28 (SN) (Delhi) (Trib)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Disallowance of expenses on estimate basis – Capital or revenue –Debatable issue – Levy of penalty is not justified – Disallowance was deleted -Levy of penalty is not justified . [ S.14A ]
Piramal Healthcare Ltd. v .Dy. CIT (2020)82 ITR 47 (SN)(Mum) (Trib)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – No specific charge recorded – addition on estimate basis – Appeal not filed against quantum addition – Levy of penalty is not justified . [ S.274 ]
Arvind Kumar Arora v. ITO (2020)82 ITR 28 (SN) (Delhi) (Trib)S. 271(1)(b) : Penalty – Failure to comply with notices – Entire
additions deleted at appellate stage —Bona fide explanation- Penalty not leviable. [ S.142(1) ]
S. 271(1)(b) : Penalty – Failure to comply with notices -Co-operating in assessment proceedings Attending- None of assessment orders ex -parte- Levy of penalty is held to be not valid .[ S.142(1) ]
Manu Rai (Smt.) v. Dy. CIT (2020)82 ITR 22 (SN)(Indore) (Trib) Manish Rai v. Dy. CIT (2020)82 ITR 22 (SN)(Indore) (Trib) Meena Devi Rai (Smt.) v. Dy. CIT (2020)82 ITR 22 (SN)(Indore) (Trib)S. 250 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Powers – Additional evidence — Should have been admitted .[ S. 147, 148 , 250 (6) ]
Kuldeep v. ITO (2020)82 ITR 35 (SN)(Delhi) (Trib)S. 250 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Duties – Ex -parte order – Bogus purchases – If assessee fails to defend case Commissioner (Appeals) to adjudicate appeal on basis of material on record [ S. 250 (6), 254(1) ]
Khimchand Okchand Bhansali v. ITO (2020) 82 ITR 34 (SN)(Mum) (Trib)S. 250 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) -Duties – Ex -parte order -Mandatory procedure to formulate points in dispute and thereafter record reasons on such points — Failure to appear on appointed day , CIT (A ) cannot dismiss the appeal in Limine – He ought to have decided on merits . [ S. 131, 250(6) ]
Ashokkumar Kalubhai Nakrani v. ITO (2020)82 ITR 7 (SN) (Surat) (Trib)