-
CIT has resorted to the revision proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act in a mechanical manner and has not been pointed out as to what error has been committed by the AO in accepting the explanation/evidences so furnished by the assessee in the process of verifying the nature of transactions.
CHANDRAVADAN DESAI VERSUS THE PCIT-9 KOLKATA
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27623 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=93976&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
For the purpose of benchmarking of power transferred from eligible unit to non eligible unit assessee can only claim internal cup when it also sales power to SEB.
DCM SHRIRAM LTD. VERSUS ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE – 3, NEW DELHI.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27622 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=93977&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee obtained and submitted a report from a merchant banker who is equally qualified to issue such valuation report under Rule 11UA(2) and the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) continues to remain inapplicable and thus, the order passed by the Assessing officer cannot be held as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue which is an essential condition for invocation of jurisdiction u/s 263
VINAYAKA MICRONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD. VERSUS PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27621 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=93978&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
(i) The assessee is not eligible for exemption under section 54F of the Act on the sale of land, as the assessee was holding more than one residential unit. (ii) Assuming the assessee has claimed deduction under section 54F of the Act, then it was the duty of the revenue to provide the rightful claim of the assessee which is available under the provisions of law but the same was not claimed by the assessee under the wrong believe. As such, the Revenue cannot take the benefit of the ignorance of the assessee rather it was duty-bound to extend the benefit available to the assessee under the provisions of law.
SANJAY SURENDRABHAI GOR VERSUS D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3 (2) AHMEDABAD
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27620 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=93966&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As both the issues in question on the basis of which the Pr.CIT had assumed jurisdiction u/s 263 had been considered and decided in appeal by the CIT(A), therefore, the Pr.CIT was clearly divested of his jurisdiction to have exercised the revisional jurisdiction vested with him u/s 263 as regards the said issues.
SHRI NITIN KUMAR DIDWANIA VERSUS PR. CIT- (CENTRAL) -3, MUMBAI
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27619 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=93970&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - The words 'expansion' and 'extension' connote different meanings and cannot be used synonymously for computing deduction u/s 35D as such cost of acquiring 100% stake in companies cannot be treated as cost of the project for the purpose of determining deduction u/s 35D.
Subex Ltd Vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27618 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Section 35D
-
ITAT - The AO recommending a revision u/s 263 to the CIT has no statutory sanction and is a course of action unknown to the law
Alfa Laval Lund AB Vs CIT(IT/TP)
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27617 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
The scope and ambit of section 153A of the Act is to restrict to only incriminating material in case of unabated years. Since the assessment for the year under consideration is an unabated one which is undisputed and that we find no existence of any such incriminating material which is the pre-requisite to make assessment u/s.153A, the consequent additions made by the Revenue are without jurisdiction and will not survive
DY. CIT – CENTRAL CIRCLE -7 (3) , MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. TRISHUL REALTY INFRA PVT. LTD. AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27616 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=92936&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The notices served through Speed Post and affixture were at the address as per PAN Database and, therefore, tantamounted to valid service, is of no assistance to the Revenue since admittedly the PAN Database also contains the residential address of the assessee and no attempt at all was made by the Revenue to service the notice at the residential address when the notice could not be served at the office address. The assessment framed u/s147, is without jurisdiction and, hence void abinitio.
SH. ANIL KUMAR VERSUS THE I.T.O., WARD-4, PATIALA.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27615 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=92940&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Under the scheme of Constitution, the Government cannot retain even a single pie of the individual citizen as tax, when it is not authorised by an authority of law. Therefore, if Tribunal refuses to condone the delay, that would amount to legalise an illegal and unconstitutional order passed by the lower authority. Therefore, by preferring the substantial justice, the delay of 508 days has to be condoned.
EQUIPMENT FABRICATORS VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE (CPC), BENGALURU
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27614 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=92941&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The reasons for reopening of assessment has to be tested / examined only on the basis of the reasons recorded and those reasons cannot be improved upon and/or submissions much less substituted by an affidavit and/or oral submission.
PENINSULA LAND LIMITED VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (3), MUMBAI & ORS.
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27594 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=85872&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Order passed without issuing SCN in pre- amendment faceless regime will be in contravention of principles of natural justice resulting in assessment being declared void.
RMSI Private Limited Vs NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27588 (HC-DELHI)
-
HC - Certificate u/s 197 for lower withholding tax at 5% on dividend receivable by Dutch Co. granted.
Deccan Holdings B V Vs INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANR
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27575 (HC-DELHI)
-
ITAT - Club membership expenditure for a director being annual subscription fee allowable u/s 37(1).
McCann Erickson India Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27574 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
ITAT - Since assessee was not providing technical services outside India, expenditure in foreign currency can not be excluded from export turnover u/s 10A/10AA.
Infosys BPM Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27573 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 10AA
-
ITAT -Revenue did not examine assessee’s valuation under DCF Method as such Rs.257.87 Cr. addition of share premium u/s 56(2)(viib) deleted. Matter to be examined afresh.
GMR Enterprises Pvt. Ltd Vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27572 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 56(2)(viib)
-
HC - Jurisdiction u/s 260A is to decide the substantial questions of law therefore condones delay in filing appeal due to change in counsel.
Precot Meridian Ltd Vs High Court Madras
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27464 (HC-MADRAS)
-
HC - Cargo handling services is covered under ‘infrastructure facility’ u/s 80-IA(4).
Menzies Aviation Bobba (Bangalore) Pvt Ltd Vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, The DCIT
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27463 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Section 80-IA(4)
-
ITAT - No appeal against draft assessment order also consequences flowing from the wrong mentioning of the section in the draft order cannot legally validate the appeal filed against the draft order.
Sandvik Mining and Construction Tools AB Vs ACIT
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27418 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
HC - Any proceeding relating to benami transactions ought to be taken up immediately or atleast within reasonable period of limitation of three years as generally provided under the Limitation Act, 1963.
Kalyan Buildmart Pvt. Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27411 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.