S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchases-Books of account not rejected-Tribunal restricting the income at 6% of bogus purchases-No substantial question of law. [S. 260A]
PCIT v. Surya Impex (2023) 451 ITR 395/ 291 Taxman 591 (Guj.)(HC)S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchases-Books of account not rejected-Tribunal restricting the income at 6% of bogus purchases-No substantial question of law. [S. 260A]
PCIT v. Surya Impex (2023) 451 ITR 395/ 291 Taxman 591 (Guj.)(HC)S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Corporate social responsibility expenditure-Expenditure for earlier years allowable as a deduction-CBDT Circular binding on the department.
PCIT v. PEC Ltd. (2023) 451 ITR 436 / 221 DTR 481 / 330 CTR 593/ 291 Taxman 281 (Delhi)(HC) PCIT v. Rites Ltd. (2023) 451 ITR 436 / 221 DTR 481/ 330 CTR 593 (Delhi)(HC)/Editorial: SLP of Revenue dismissed, leaving question of lae open , PCIT v. Rites Ltd. (2024)460 ITR 593/297 Taxman 5 (SC)S. 32 : Depreciation-Goodwill, Patent, Trade Mark and Intellectual Property Rights-Intangible assets-Entitled to depreciation-Trademark need not be registered in assessee’s name. [S. 32(1(ii)]
CIT v. Daikin Shri Ram Aircon Pvt. Ltd. (2023)451 ITR 133 (Delhi)(HC) CIT v. Daikin Air Conditioning India Pvt. Ltd. (2023)451 ITR 133 (Delhi)(HC)S. 10(26AAAA): Income of Sikkimese – Individual- Old Indian settlers who had settled in Sikkim prior to the merger of Sikkim with India on April 26, 1975 were also entitled to the exemption-Proviso excludes from the provision of exemption a Sikkimese woman merely because she marries a non-Sikkimese after April 1, 2008 is discriminatory and violative of articles – Law declared by Court to be treated as law until legislation is made. [ Sikkim Income Tax Manual, 1948, Sikkim Citizenship (Amendment) Order, 1989 — Sikkim Work Permit Rules, 1965, Art. 14 15 142 371F ]
Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim v. UOI (2023)451 ITR 213 / 292 Taxman 73/ 330 CTR 481/ 222 DTR 1(SC) Rapden Lepcha v. UOI (2023)451 ITR 213/ 330 CTR 481/ 222 DTR 1 (SC)Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988
S. 3: Benami Transactions — Notice in respect of transactions entered into prior to amendment in 2016 – Amendment to have effect only prospectively — Notice was quashed[ Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016, S 53 ]
Rajesh Katyal v .IT Department (2023)451 ITR 455 (Delhi)(HC)Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988
S. 3: Benami Property Transactions – Act not retrospective in operation — Not applicable to transactions entered into prior to coming into force of the Act ie. 25-10-2016. [S.2(9)(A)(b), 3(2), 5, Art .20(1) , Art, 226 ]
Jaladi Prasuna v. UOI (2023)451 ITR 477/ 290 Taxman 47 (Delhi)( HC)Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 .
S. 4: Declaration – Delay in payment of tax Time limit for deposit of tax — Substantial amount was deposited – Failure of the Chartered Accountant to information from the portal -Directed the Revenue to accept the balance deposit of tax with interest [ S. 119(2)(b), Art , 226 ]
Vidhi Garments Pvt. Ltd. v. CBDT (2023)451 ITR 84/ 332 CTR 310/ 224 DTR 473 (Delhi)(HC)S. 276CC : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to furnish return of income-Levy of penalty-Tribunal set aside the penalty order-Prosecution is not justified. [S. 271(1)(c), 271F, 276C]
Metricstream Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2022) 326 CTR 684 / 214 DTR 411(Karn.)(HC)S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Not all information in possession of the officer can be construed as information that qualifies for initiation of proceedings for reassessment, and it is only such information that suggests escapement and which, based upon the material in his possession-Agreement between doctors and hospital-remuneration paid for fixed amount along with components such as number of patients treated etc. [r.w.s.15, 17, 28(i)][S. 148, Art. 226]
Mathew Cherian (Dr.) v. ACIT (2022) 219 DTR 2 / 329 CTR 809 (Mad.)(HC)S. 148A : Reassessment Notice-show cause notice before passing the order-Petitioner within a period of four days submitted reply-the petitioner cannot challenge the notice on the ground that clear seven days’ time was not afforded-Writ petition was dismissed. [S. 148, Art, 226]
Mathura Mercantile P. Ltd. v. PCIT (2022) 213 DTR 433 / 326 CTR 606(MP)(HC)