S .14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income – Disallowance under Section14A cannot exceed the exempt income – No substantial question of law.[ S.260A ]
PCIT v. Tata Industries Ltd ( Bom)( HC) www.itatonline .orgS .14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income – Disallowance under Section14A cannot exceed the exempt income – No substantial question of law.[ S.260A ]
PCIT v. Tata Industries Ltd ( Bom)( HC) www.itatonline .orgS. 148A: Reassessment – Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice Principle of Natural Justice – Non-Application of Mind by Authorities- Role of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) – Approval under Section 151- Strictures -Interplay Between CGST Act and Income Tax Act- Costs and Accountability of Tax Authorities- The High Court held that the reopening of assessment under Section 148 was invalid as it was based on mechanical approval and a lack of due diligence by the tax authorities- Imposed personal costs of ₹25,000 each on the Assessing Officer and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, payable to the National Association for the Blind, Mumbai for arbitrary and unjustified actions serves as a deterrent against abuse of authority and reinforces accountability in the exercise of statutory powers- Directed the Ministry to scrutinize the conduct of the involved officers for accountability. [S. 148 , 148A(b) 148A(d), 151 , Art. 226 ]
C.C. Dangi & Associates v. UOI ( Bom)( HC) www.itatonline .org .S. 148A: Reassessment – Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice Principle of Natural Justice – Non-Application of Mind by Authorities- Role of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) – Approval under Section 151- Strictures -Interplay Between CGST Act and Income Tax Act- Costs and Accountability of Tax Authorities- The High Court held that the reopening of assessment under Section 148 was invalid as it was based on mechanical approval and a lack of due diligence by the tax authorities- Imposed personal costs of ₹25,000 each on the Assessing Officer and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, payable to the National Association for the Blind, Mumbai for arbitrary and unjustified actions serves as a deterrent against abuse of authority and reinforces accountability in the exercise of statutory powers- Directed the Ministry to scrutinize the conduct of the involved officers for accountability. [S. 148 , 148A(b) 148A(d), 151 , Art. 226 ]
C.C. Dangi & Associates v. UOI ( Bom)( HC) www.itatonline .org .S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment -Additional legal ground is admitted -Not specifying the charge – Levy of penalty is not valid – Substantial question of law is admitted before High Court – Penalty cannot be levied- The decision in Veena Estate P.Ltd v. CIT( 2024) 464 ITR 483 ( Bom)( HC) is distinguished . [ S. 68, 69, 260A, 274 ]
Amrish Manoj Dhupalia v. DCIT ( Mum)( Trib) www.itatonline .org Bhavya Manoj Dhupalia ( Ms) v. DCIT ( Mum)( Trib) www.itatonline .org Mohan Manoj Dhupalia v. DCIT ( Mum)( Trib) www.itatonline .orgS. 32: Depreciation – Car registered in name of director – Funds utilized of the company – Depreciation is allowable to the company.
Mukesh Trends Lifestyle Limited v. DCIT (Ahd)(Trib)(UR)S. 272A : Penalty – Failure to answer questions – Sign statements – Furnish information – Substantial compliance – Levy of penalty is not justified. [S. 143(3), 272A(1)(d)]
Pawan International v. ITO (Chd)(Trib) (UR)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Bogus purchases – Estimated addition – Levy of penalty is not valid.[S.69A]
ITO v. Saraswati Wire And Cable Industries (Mum)( Trib)(UR)S. 263: Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Assessment order passed after making necessary inquiries – Held, revision proceedings cannot be initiated simply because PCIT was of the opinion that further inquiries should have been made on the issue.[ S.143(3) ]
Venerable Advertising P. Ltd. v. PCIT [2024] 109 ITR 81 (SN.) (Kol) (Trib) Editorial: Amritrashi Infra (P) Ltd. v. PR. CIT in ITA No 838/Kol/2019; Assessment Year 2012-13; order dt. 12/08/2020; Narayan Tatu Rane v. ITO [2016] 70 taxmann.com 227 (Mum.) (Trib.) Followed.S. 251 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Powers – Appeal cannot be dismissed on account of non-prosecution- Order is set aside and directed to decide on merits. [S. 246A, 251(2)]
Pramod Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (Raipur)(Trib) (UR)S. 151 : Reassessment – Sanction for issue of notice – Beyond three years – Specified Authority – Sanction by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- Reassessment notice and order is bad in law.[S.148, 148A(b), 148A(d), 151(ii)]
Parinee Housing Pvt. Ltd v. Dy. CIT (Mum)(Trib)(UR)