S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Business income-Sales tax subsidy-West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 1999-Capital Receipt-Not taxable. [S. 28(i), West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 1999]
Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 95 ITR 134 / 216 TTJ 402 (Mum.)(Trib.)S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Business income-Sales tax subsidy-West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 1999-Capital Receipt-Not taxable. [S. 28(i), West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 1999]
Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 95 ITR 134 / 216 TTJ 402 (Mum.)(Trib.)S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend-Finance company-Advance loan-Not assessable as deemed dividend.
Jitendra Kapildeo Gupta v. DCIT (2022) 64 CCH 359/ 216 TTJ 751 / 212 DTR 71 (Pune)(Trib.)/ACIT v. Subu Chem (P) Ltd( 2022) / 216 TTJ 751 / 212 DTR 71 (Pune)(Trib.)S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend-Amount received in previous year from an entity in which the assessee was having more than 25% shareholding-No evidence to show that amount received in current year-Addition is not valid.
Kailash Kanhaiyalal Gidwani v. ACIT (2022) 216 TTJ 54 (UO) (Pune)(Trib.)S. 69 :Unexplained investments – Long term capital gains -Penny stock – Denial of exemption is not valid . [ S. 10(38), 45, 131 , 133A ]
Sunita Chaudhry (Smt ) v .ITO ( Mum)( Trib) www.itatonline .orgS. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Approval-Procedure-Tribunal was not justified in quashing penalty order passed by Assessing Officer on mere premises that Additional Commissioner did not find place in section 274(2)(b) of the Act. [S. 2(28C), 274(2)]
CIT v. Gyan Chand Jain (Late) (2022) 139 taxmann.com 318 (Raj.)(HC) Editorial : SLP granted to Revenue, Gyan Chand Jain (Late) v. CIT (2022) 287 Taxman 379 / 114 CCH 313 (SC)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Offshore bank accounts-Voluntary declaration-Levy of penalty is not valid. [S. 143(3), 147, 148]
CIT(IT) v. Ashutosh Bhatt (2022) 287 Taxman 436/217 DTR 381/ 329 CTR 541 (Bom.)(HC)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Pendency of appeal before ITAT-Assessing Officer can complete the assessment-No demand can be enforced till the appeal is decided by the Appellate Tribunal. [S. 254(1), Art. 226]
Taqa Nevyeli Power Co. P. Ltd. v. ITAT (2022) 287 Taxman 113 /113 CCH 324 //(2023)452 ITR 302 (Mad.) (HC)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Work in progress-Method of accounting-Valuation of stock-Merely to remand matter to AO to verify correctness of submission made by assessee that profit element was accounted for in its income was held to be not valid. [S. 145]
PCIT v. Orissa State Police Housing & Welfare Corporation Ltd. (2022) 287 Taxman 479 / 218 DTR 148/114 CCH 317 / 328 CTR 823(Orissa)(HC)S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Delay of 174 days-Delay was condoned.
PCIT v. Ratan Kumar Somani (2022) 139 taxmann.com 37 (Cal.)(HC) Editorial : SLP of assessee dismissed, Ratan Kumar Somani v. Pr. CIT (2022) 287 Taxman 294 /114 CCH 61 (SC)S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Delay of 545 days-Administrative exigency-Delay was condoned.
Inland World Logistics (P) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT (2022) 139 taxmann.com 314 (Cal.)(HC) Editorial : SLP of assessee dismissed, Inland World Logistics (P) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT (2022) 287 Taxman 377/114 CCH 59 (SC)