Click here to download the pdf versions of the Digest of case laws Expenditure Tax Act, 1987
S. 2(6): Hotel – Dual occupancy room in Hotels — Expenditure-Tax chargeable where room charges “Per Individual” Less than Rs. 1,200 — Exemption not allowable .[ S. 2(8),2(10) , 3 , 4(a) , Art 136 ]
Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. v. ACIT (2023)452 ITR 248 (SC) Editorial: SLP of the assessee is dismissed, Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. v. ACIT ( T.A. No. 64 of 2007 dt 30 -8 -2019 ( Bom)( HC )Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020
S.4: Filing of declaration and particulars to be furnished — Delay in filing appeal – Delay of 958 days was condoned – Delay was condoned – Directed to accept the declaration filed by the assessee. [ S 2(1)(a) ITACT , S. 250, 260A ]
PCIT v. Aditya Saraf (HUF) (2023) 452 ITR 87/ 330 CTR 321/ 221 DTR 241 (Cal)(HC)S. 144B : Faceless Assessment – Natural justice – Hearing though video conference – Voluminous documents – Department has agreed to provide physical hearing at Chennai – Faceless converted to interface – Assessment order was set aside – Petitioner was directed to appear before Assessing Officer at Chennai . [ S. 11, 260A, Art ,226 ]
Chennai Port Authority v. NFAC ( 2023)) 454 ITR 692 ( Mad)( HC) www.itatonline .orgS. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal – Duties- Numbering of paragraphs in all orders – The Supreme Court urges the High Court and Tribunals to follow a uniform format for all its orders.
BS Hari v. UOI 2023 (SC) www.itatonline .orgS. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Re development of building – Monthly rental compensation received from the builder for rent of alternative accommodation – Not utilised for paying alternative accommodation – Capital receipt – Not taxable as income from other sources – Delay of 1566 days in filing the appeal is condoned . [ S. 56, 254(1) ]
Ajay Parasmal Kothari v. ITO ( Mum)( Trib) www.itatonline .orgS. 148A: Reassessment – Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice – Violation of principles of Natural Principle – Order passed against assessee without considering the reply – Remitted back the to the Assessing Officer to issue fresh notice and provide time period of 7 days to file a reply and the assessee was directed to file a reply through E-governance only. [S. 148 (d), 148 (b), Art. 226]
Ravishankar G. v. ITO (2022) 327 CTR 61 (Mad)(HC)S. 144B : Faceless Assessment –Natural justice – Opportunity of video conference was not provided – Order was set aside [ S. 148 , Art , 226 ]
Harsha Bhavesh Patel (Smt) v. NFAC ( 2022) 216 DTR 217 ( Karn)( HC)S. 12A : Registration –Trust or institution- Order of Tribunal directing the CIT( E ) to grant registration is affirmed . [ S. 260A ]
PCIT v. Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (2022) 328 CTR 697 ( Telangana) ( HC)S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Commissioner cannot travel beyond the show cause notice – Order of Tribunal is affirmed [ S. 260A ]
PCIT v. Bravo Sponage Iron (P) Ltd ( 2022) 212 DTR 291/ 326 CTR 85 ( Cal )( HC)S. 221 : Collection and recovery – Penalty – Tax in default –Limitation – Pendency of writ petition – Period to be excluded – Order was not barred by limitation . [S. 221(1) , Rule , 688 of the II schedule (Procedure for Recovery of Tax ) Art ,226 ]
Sujatha . T.S. v. TRO ( 2022) 215 DTR 380/ 327 CTR 476 (Ker )( HC)