Click here to download the pdf versions of the Digest of case laws 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.)S. 253 : Appellate Tribunal-Monetary limits-Penalty-Exception provided in para 10(e) of Circular No. 17 of 2019 (2019) 426 ITR 106 (St), applicable only for quantum proceedings and cannot be applicable for penalty proceedings – Appeal is not maintainable. [S. 254(1), 271(1)(c)]
Dy. CIT v. Aluvind Architectural Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 88 ITR 421 (Mum.) (Trib.)S. 251 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Power of enhancement-No jurisdiction to travel beyond record-Appeal against cash credits-Enhancement cannot be made for making estimate commission of 2 Per Cent of commission. [S. 68, 251(1)(a)]
ITO v. Angel Cement Pvt. Ltd. (2021)88 ITR 616 (Delhi)(Trib.)