S. 139 : Return of income – When the assessee took advantage of provisions of S.139(5),he could not say that it was non-est [ S.10B, 139(5)]
Amit Basu v. Dy. CIT (2018) 252 Taxman 314/167 DTR 110 / (2019) 307 CTR 303 (Raj.)(HC)S. 139 : Return of income – When the assessee took advantage of provisions of S.139(5),he could not say that it was non-est [ S.10B, 139(5)]
Amit Basu v. Dy. CIT (2018) 252 Taxman 314/167 DTR 110 / (2019) 307 CTR 303 (Raj.)(HC)S. 133 : Power to call for information – Legal representatives cannot refuse to furnish details of bank accounts of deceased. [ S.133(6).]
S. Savithri (Mrs.) v. ITO ( 2018) 400 ITR 513/ 253 Taxman 186 / 164 DTR 102 / 301 CTR 734 (Karn) (HC)S. 132 : Search and seizure – Validity of the Search- Pending before Supreme Court – All Authorities of department as also Courts should await decision of Supreme Court on the issue of validity of Search and could not direct Appellate Authorities of department to go into question of validity of search [S. 153A.]
Prathibha Jewellery House v. CIT (A) (2018)404 ITR 91/ 252 Taxman 174/ 301 CTR 347 / 162 DTR 174(Karn.)(HC)S. 131: Power – Discovery – Production of evidence –As the assessee was carrying on business in same premises proceedings initiated u/s 131 of the Act was held to be valid [ The Diplomatic Relations (Vienna Convention) Act, 1972 ]
Sai Ramakrishna Karuturi v. UOI(2018) 402 ITR 7 / 252 Taxman 194/163 DTR 420 (Karn.)(HC)S. 127 : Power to transfer cases – Transfer for centralization of cases with in city is valid, it is nether necessary to record the reasons nor opportunity of hearing is to be given
Advantage Strategic Consulting Private Ltd. v. PCIT (2018) 400 ITR 405/ 253 Taxman 11/ 161 DTR 108 / 300 CTR 151 (Mad) (HC)S. 127 : Power to transfer cases – Transfer from Ahmedabad to Moradabad -Transfer for effective and co-ordinated investigation and centralisation of cases — Order of Transfer is held to be valid.
Genus Electrotech Ltd. v. UOI ( 2018) 402 ITR 221 (Guj) (HC)S. 127 : Power to transfer cases -The existence of agreement between two jurisdictional Commissioners is a condition precedent for passing the order of transfer. The agreement cannot be implied because S. 127(2) (2) (a) contemplates a positive state of mind of the two jurisdictional CITs. Absence of disagreement cannot tantamount to agreement.
Rentworks India Private Ltd v. PCIT( 2018) 161 DTR 371/ 300 CTR 294 ( Bom)(HC)S. 127 : Power to transfer cases -Transfer from one officer to another officer in same City for co-ordinated investigation of cases involving transactions to avoid tax was held to be valid .Opportunity of hearing is not mandatory .
Nilesh Natwarlal Sheth. v. ACIT (2018) 402 ITR 407 (Guj) (HC)S. 119 : Central Board of Direct Taxes- Powers- Condonation of delay in making investment- Power must be exercised in a judicious manner – Order of CBDT is set aside [ S. 54EC, Art . 226 ]
Dr. Sujatha Ramesh (Smt.) v. CBDT (2018) 401 ITR 242 (Karn) (HC)S. 115JB : Book profit – Provision is not applicable to foreign companies
AB Holdings, Mauritius-Ii, In re. (2018) 402 ITR 37/ 163 DTR 225 (AAR)