S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Recording of satisfaction-In applicable portions are not struck off-Levy of penalty is held to be not valid.
PCIT v. Goa Coastal Resorts & Recreation Pvt. Ltd. (Bom.)(HC), www. itatonline.orgS. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Recording of satisfaction-In applicable portions are not struck off-Levy of penalty is held to be not valid.
PCIT v. Goa Coastal Resorts & Recreation Pvt. Ltd. (Bom.)(HC), www. itatonline.orgS. 271(1)(b) : Penalty-Failure to comply with notices-Alleged bank account not belong to assessee–No failure on part of assessee-No penalty can be levied. [S. 142(1)]
Charu Modi Bhartia v. DCIT (2019) 177 DTR 1/ 104 taxmann.com 390 (Delhi)(Trib.)S. 271(1)(b) : Penalty-Failure to comply with notices–Penalty is upheld based on assessee’s conduct and failure to comply with statutory notices but deleted the penalty for five years in the interest of justice. [S.132, 142(1)]
Commitment Mortality Vision Education Society v. ACIT (2019) 74 ITR 62(SN) (Delhi)(Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue–Share capital – share premium-AO conducted detailed inquiry–Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 68, 133(6)]
Conton Textiles Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2019) 55 CCH 600 / 72 ITR 85 (Delhi) (Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue–Orders shall be passed without being influenced by any of the observation made or finding rendered by the Single Judge.
Cognizant Technology Solutions India (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2019) 310 CTR 350 / 181 DTR 183 (Mad.)(HC)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Revision by CIT on the ground of over-valuation of shares of assessee for buy-back purposes—Directing the assessee to file necessary objections to the show-cause and such reply shall be considered by meeting out each and every objections raised, on merits and in accordance with law. [S. 92CA]
Cognizant Technology Solutions India (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2019) 310 CTR 348 / 181 DTR 181 (Mad.)(HC)S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Responded can depend the grounds, though no appeal id filed–Search and seizure–Jurisdiction issue. [S. 132, 153A, ITAT R. 27]
Dy. CIT v. Pacific Industries Ltd. (2019) 72 ITR 634 (Jodh.)(Trib.) Dy. CIT v. Pacific Leasing and Research Ltd. (2019) 72 ITR 634 (Jodh.)(Trib.)S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Remand Assessment-Order giving effect-AO must comply the direction of the Tribunal. [S.2(8), 143(3), 250]
Dy. CIT v. Punjab Beverages (P) Ltd. (2019) 174 DTR 329 (Chd.)(Trib.)S. 250 : Commissioner (Appeals)-Additional evidence-Evidence cannot be admitted without affording an opportunity to AO to cross-examine. [S. 250, R. 46A]
Dy. C. I. T. v. Roshan Lal Jindal (2019) 71 ITR 596 (Chd.)(Trib.)S. 246A : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Appealable orders–Denial of liability–Not confined only to the liability to be assessed u/s. 143(3) of the Act-Liability to pay tax u/s. 115Q is also appealable order–Alternative remedy is available-Writ is not maintainable. [S. 15QA, 143(3), Art. 226]
Genpact India Private Ltd. v. DCIT (2019)419 ITR 440/ 311 CTR 737/ 184 DTR 17 / 111 taxmann.com 402/ ( 2020) 268 Taxman 299 (SC), www. itatonline. org Editorial : Order in Genpact India Private Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 419 ITR 370 / 181 DTR 361 / 310 CTR 505 / 108 taxann.com 340 (Delhi)(HC) is affirmed.