S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–On excessive deduction and alleged excess stock-Deletion of penalty is held to be justified [S. 10B]
PCIT v. Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 168 DTR 161 / 102 CCH 315 (Karn.)(HC)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–On excessive deduction and alleged excess stock-Deletion of penalty is held to be justified [S. 10B]
PCIT v. Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 168 DTR 161 / 102 CCH 315 (Karn.)(HC)S. 245D : Settlement Commission-Application–Rejection of an application on the ground that the income disclosed belonged to another entity was a finding of fact and did not call for interference by the High Court. [S.245C, Art. 226]
Vishwa Nath Gupta v. PCIT (2018) 82 taxmann.com 382 / 304 CTR 673 (Delhi)(HC)S. 245D : Settlement Commission-Addition was made by extrapolating the actual production vis a vis the reported production of the current year to the preceding years-Addition on the grounds of sufficient evidence of unaccounted production confirmed-Entire process to be seen for considering 80IB deduction-Writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the issue was very factual and there being no perversity. [S. 132, 153A, 80IB, 245D(4), Art. 226 ]
Sumilon Industries Ltd. v. ITSC (2018) 168 DTR 97 / 99 CCH 112 (Guj.)(HC)S. 245D : Settlement Commission – If Settlement Commission is unable to form a decisive opinion to give a definitive finding for rejection of settlement application after initial and preliminary hearing, proceeding to second stage, in which more in-depth scrutiny and verification takes place is the only option- Order of Settlement Commission rejecting the petition was set aside and directed to decide on merits. [S. 132, 245C(1), 245D(2)(C)]
R.T. Industries v. ITSC (2018) 98 taxmann.com 236 / 170 DTR 281 / 305 CTR 1 / 103 CCH 4 (Delhi)(HC)S. 234B : Interest–Advance tax–Refund of warehousing charges paid on seized goods by department was rejected–Cannot claim interest from date when goods were auctioned but entitled to claim interest at 12% p.a. from the date of order passed by the settlement commission till actual payment. [S. 132]
Pooran Sugar Works v. UOI (2018) 170 DTR 113 / 304 CTR 793 / 103 CCH 54 (All.)(HC)S. 153 : Assessment–Reassessment–Limitation–Direction by CIT(A) to assess income in the hands of another person can be given only if an opportunity of being heard is given to such other person- Matter remanded to CIT(A). [S. 147, 148, 149, 150]
Ramesh Chandra v. ACIT (2018) 169 DTR 468 / 304 CTR 449 (Delhi)(HC) Sanjay Chandra v. ACIT (2018) 169 DTR 468 / 304 CTR 449 (Delhi)(HC)S. 147 : Reassessment–Notice–Expenditure on contact charges -Allegation of charges were high-Reopening on issues examined in detail in the assessment is bad in law. [S. 37(1), 69C, 148]
Sky View Consultants (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 96 taxmann.com 419 / 304 CTR 834 (Delhi)(HC)S. 147 : Reassessment–Notice–Not to be quashed if appeal on similar issue pending in another Assessment year. [A. 226, S. 115BBC]
Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi) v. UOI. (2018) 100 taxmann.com 77 / 168 DTR 364 / 304 CTR 444 (Bom.)(HC) .Editorial : Affirmed in Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi) v. UOI ( 2020) 114 taxmann.com 489 / 270 Taxman 197 / 316 CTR 587 (SC)S. 147 : Reassessment – Survey -Non disclosure of Royalty and FTS in the original return-Reassessment is held to be justified. [S. 133A, 148]
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (IT) (2018) 97 taxmann.com 637 / 170 DTR 433 (Delhi)(HC)S. 147 : Reassessment–Notice-License fee-Use of logo -Capital or revenue – Reopening solely based on audit objections not permitted as it amounts to change of opinion. [S. 37(1), 147]
T T K Prestige Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 97 taxmann.com 112 / 169 DTR 409 / 304 CTR 689 (Karn.)(HC)