S. 143 (3) : Assessment–Non-existing company–Amalgamation-Assessment on the non-existing is held to be void ab initio.
PCIT v. Transcend MT Services (P.) Ltd. (2019) 267 Taxman 314 (Delhi) (HC)S. 143 (3) : Assessment–Non-existing company–Amalgamation-Assessment on the non-existing is held to be void ab initio.
PCIT v. Transcend MT Services (P.) Ltd. (2019) 267 Taxman 314 (Delhi) (HC)S. 143(2) : Assessment–Notice–Mandatory-Block assessment–Non issue of notice – Assessment is held to be bad in law. [S. 132, 158BC]
CIT v. Sodder Builder And Developers (P.) Ltd. (2019)419 ITR 436 (Bom.) (HC)S. 142(2A) : Inquiry before assessment–Special audit–An attempt to understand the books of account-Huge amount of professional fees was paid-Reference to special Audit is held to be valid.
Multi Commodity Exchange of India v. Dy.CIT ( 2019) 310 CTR 274/ 176 DTR 385 / (2020) 426 ITR 132 (Bom.) (HC)S. 142(2A) : Inquiry before assessment–Special audit–Finding that direction had been issued after condition laid down were fulfilled—Writ is held to be not maintainable. [Art. 226]
Religare Finvest Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2019)419 ITR 5/( 2020) 312 CTR 432 / 185 DTR 119/ 269 Taxman 541 (Delhi)(HC) Religare Enterprises Ltd v. Dy CIT (2019) 419 ITR 5 /( 2020) 312 CTR 432 / 185 DTR 119(Delhi) (HC)S. 90 : Double taxation agreement-Rate of tax–Applicable to domestic company and not 65%-CBDT Circular is held to be applicable-DTAA-India-Japan. [Art. 7, 23, 24(2)]
Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi Ltd. v. CIT (2019) 310 CTR 479 / 181 DTR 220 (Cal.) (HC)S. 80P : Co-operative societies–Denial of exemption-Alternative remedy – Directed to avail alternative remedy u/s. 246A of the Act. [S. 246A, Art. 226, Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983]
K274 Uthukuli Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. v. ITO (2019) 267 Taxman 374 (Mad.)(HC)S. 72 : Loss-Carry forward and set off-scheme sanctioned by BIFR-Objection by Revenueto grant tax concession- Writ is held to be not maintainable . . [S. 72A, Sick industrial companies (Special provisions) Act, 1985, S. 18, 19, Art,226 ]
Olympia Industries Ltd. v. UOI (2019) 181 DTR 253/ (2020) 312 CTR 248 / / 424 ITR 202 (Bom.)(HC)S. 69A : Income from undisclosed sources–No evidence to show that cheques stated to have been issued by the assessee-Deletion of addition is held to be justified.
CIT v. Anoop Jain (2019) 182 DTR 291/311 CTR 58 /( 2020) 268 Taxman 427 / 424 ITR 115 (Delhi)(HC)S. 69 : Unexplained investment-Income from undisclosed sources- Jewellery converted to bullion and sold–Sale proceeds through bank –Addition cannot be made as income from undisclosed sources. [Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997]
N. R. Gangavathi (HUF), Basavaraj Kamatgi (HUF) v. ITO (2019) 419 ITR 469/ 311 CTR 625/ 184 DTR 375 (Karn.)(HC) Basavaraj Kamatgi (HUF) v. ITO (2019) 419 ITR 469 /311 CTR 625/ 184 DTR 375(Karn.) (HC)S. 69 : Un explained investment-Income from undisclosed sources- Non-Resident-Deposit in NRI Accounts–Deletion of addition by the Tribunal based on the evidences–Reversal of the order of Tribunal by the High Court is held to be not valid–Oder of the Tribunal is affirmed. [S.158BB, 260A, Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, S.13]
Purshottam Khatri v. CIT (2019) 419 ITR 475 / 267 Taxman 503/ ( 2020) 312 CTR 323/ 185 DTR 177 (SC) Editorial : Decision in CIT v Purshottam Khatri (2006) 203 CTR 1/(2007) 290 ITR 260 (MP) (HC ) is reversed.