S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection-If an Indian agent has been paid an arm’s length remuneration, nothing further could be taxed in hands of Assessee-DTAA-India-Mauritius [Art, 5(4)]
ADIT v. Asia Today Ltd. (2021) 210 TTJ 8 / (2022) 213 DTR 239(Mum.)(Trib.)
Digest of case laws
Online digest of latest case laws
This Digest of case laws is prepared by KSA Legal and AIFTP from judgements reported in BCAJ, CTR, DTR, ITD, ITR, ITR (Trib), Chamber's Journal, SOT, Taxman, TTJ, BCAJ, ACAJ, www.itatonline.org and other journals
Click here to download the pdf versions of the Digest of case laws S. 2(1A) : Agricultural income-Income derived from sale of saplings and seedling grown in a nursery alone shall deemed to be agricultural income-subsequent operation, i.e., supply of fertilizer, supply of soil, engaging horticulturists, insuring the plant, making pits and other related activities carried out in assessee’s nursery but in client’s site cannot be termed as secondary operation and hence not agricultural income. [S. 10(1)]
Jayanti Botanical Gardens v. ITO (2021) 61 CCH 342 / 211 TTJ 15 (UO) (SMC) (Bang.)(Trib.)Wealth -tax Act , 1957 .
S. 2(ea) : Asset- Lack of evidence to support the land being vacant as of the cut-off date and evidence to the contrary, issue set aside to the file of AO for verification, whether the particular asset can be brought to tax under the Wealth Tax Act [ S. 16(3)]
Giridhari Govindas (HUF) v. ACIT ( 2021 ) 209 TTJ 953 ( Chennai ) ( Trib)Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015
S. 2(11): Asset located outside India -b Beneficial interest – Notice issued to assessee and order passed making addition on account of amount received in bank account where assessee is allegedly beneficial owner-Assessee not liable to be taxed. [ S. 5, 10(3) Companies Act, 2013 , S. 89(10), 90 (1)]
ACIT v. Jatinder Mehra (2021) 212 TTJ 681 (Delhi) ( Trib)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Not specifying the charge-Levy of penalty is held to be not valid-Legal issue-Additional ground was admitted-Penalty provision u/s 271AAA is not applicable to search cases conducted after 1-7-2012. [S. 132, 254(1), 271AAA, 271AAB, 274]
Balaji Telefilms Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2021) 88 ITR 270 (Mum.)(Trib.) Elite Realtech Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2021) 88 ITR 401 (Delhi) (Trib.) Silicon Graphics Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2021) 88 ITR 389 (Delhi)(Trib.) Airports Authority of India; Add. CIT v. (2021)90 ITR 48 (Trib) (SN)(Delhi) ( Trib)/Dy. CIT v. Preity Zinta ( Ms) (2021)90 ITR 84/ 213 TTJ 673 (SN)/ 206 DTR 89 (Mum) (Trib)/Eagle Flask Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2021)90 ITR 89 (SN)(Pune) (Trib)/ITO v. Maharashtra State Co-Operative Credit Societies Deposit Guarantee Corp. Ltd. (2021)90 ITR 36 (SN)(Pune) (Trib)/Pradeep Sood v. Dy. CIT (2021)90 ITR 44 (SN)(Delhi) (Trib)/Royal Western India Turf Club v. PCIT (2021)92 ITR 624 (Mum) (Trib)/Pal Synthetics Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2021)92 ITR 50 (SN) (Mum) (Trib)/Samal Infra Projects P. Ltd. v . ITO (2021)92 ITR 9 (Trib)(SN) (Delhi) ( Trib) Samal Infra Projects P. Ltd. v . ITO (2021)92 ITR 9 (Trib)(SN) (Delhi) ( Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Housing projects-Principle of consistency applied to an order under section 263 of the Act as well-Revision was barred by limitation-Issue was not subject of reassessment proceedings-Assessing Officer adopting permissible view-Revision is held to be invalid. [S. 80IB(10), 263(2)]
Nilkanth Developers v. PCIT (2021) 88 ITR 11 (SN) (Surat)(Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Issue subject matter of appeal-Commissioner is not barred from exercising power of revision-Interest free funds-Direction was modified-Failure to deduct ta at source-Production expenses-Revision was held to be valid. [S. 36(1)(iii), 40(a)(ia), 263, Expln. 1(c)]
MAD Studios Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2021) 88 ITR 37 (SN) (Mum.)(Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Revision of reassessment order-Reassessment was farmed without issue of mandatory notice under section 143(2) of the Act-Not curable defects-Revision assessment order which was non est in law is null and void. [S. 143(2), 143(3), 147, 148, 292BB]
Khushi Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2021) 88 ITR 14 (SN) (Kol.) (Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Long term capital loss-Audit objection-Assessing Officer depending his view in response to audit query-Revision order is held to be not valid. [S. 143(3)]
Grasim Industries Ltd. v. PCIT (2021) 88 ITR 47 (SN) (Mum.)(Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limited scrutiny-Revision directing the Assessing Officer to make fresh assessment on issues not subject matter of limited scrutiny – Revision is bad in law. [S. 142(1) 143(2)]
Taj Paul Bhardwaj v. PCIT (2021)88 ITR 352 / 211 TTJ 58 (Chd.) (Trib.)