Monthly Archive: June 2020

Section 127, 132(4) HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY on Jul 15, 2019 held that when the ‎assessment of an Assessee is being transferred from one Commissionerate to another, the ‎requirement of hearing and following the principle of natural justice is inbuilt in the ‎statutory provisions contained in Section 127 of the Act. Therefore the giving of notice to ‎the assessee containing the reasons and the statements or even the gist of the statements ‎to the extent relevant for the proposed action is a basic postulate. The views of the ‎noticee are to be considered by the authority before taking any decision to confirm or ‎drop the notice. A show cause notice to be effective must be adequate so as to enable a ‎party to effectively object/respond to the same. The authority concerned is obliged to ‎consider the objections, if any, and thereafter, reach a finding one way or the other. The ‎impugned order is quashed. NARESH MANAKCHAND JAIN vs PCIT. IN favour of the ‎assessee.‎

Section 127, 132(4) HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY on Jul 15, 2019 AY 2011-12 and 2012-13 NARESH MANAKCHAND JAIN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS. AKIL KURESHI & S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. WRIT PETITION NO.707 OF 2019 Decision…
Read more

127, 127(4), 132(4), AY 2011-12, AY 2012-13, Bobmay High Court, In Favour of Assessee

Section 153C: Delhi High Court on 09.08.2019 held that since the search took place and Notice under Section 153C prior to 1st June, 2015 and, therefore, Section 153C of the Act as it stood at the relevant time applied. Therefore, the onus was on the Revenue to show that the incriminating material/documents recovered at the time of search belongs’ to the Assessee. In other words, it is not enough for the Revenue to show that the documents either pertain’ to the Assessee or contains information that relates to’ the Assessee. Further the licence issued to the Assessee by the DTCP and the letter issued by the DTCP permitting it to transfer such licence are not incriminating material and therefore jurisdiction can not be assumed by the AO under Section 153C of the Act. PCIT vs M/S. Dreamcity Buildwell Pvt.

Conclusion Section 153C: Delhi High Court on 09.08.2019 held that since the search took place and Notice under Section 153C prior to 1st June, 2015 and, therefore, Section 153C of the Act as it stood at the relevant time applied. Therefore, the onus was on…
Read more

153C, 2005-06, Decisions, Delhi, Delhi High Court, In Favour of Assessee, incriminating material, Satisfaction, Satisfaction Note, Search and seizure

THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA on 5th June, 2020 held that the taxing statutes are subject to the rule of strict interpretation, and the benefit of ambiguity in case of an exemption notification or an exemption clause must go in favour of the revenue; and the same principles would apply in relation to Section 80-O of the Act. Constitution Bench decision in Dilip Kumar & Co. (supra), RAMNATH & CO. Vs CIT.

THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA on 5th June, 2020 held that the taxing statutes are subject to the rule of strict interpretation, and the benefit of ambiguity in case of an exemption notification or an exemption clause must go in favour of…
Read more

1996-97, 1997-98, 80M, AY 1993-94, AY 1994-95, AY 1995-96, deduction, Exemption, Supreme Court

Section 14A envisages that there has to be an actual receipt of exempt income during the relevant previous year for purpose of making any disallowance u/s 14A, Section 2(22)(e) do not apply when transactions are trading business transactions and The provisions of section 50C cannot be incorporated in the computation of block of the assets. DCIT vs. FUTURZ NEXT SERVICES (PRIVATE) LIMITED. AY 2013-14

Para 7-Conclusion “.…Section 14A envisages that there has to be an actual receipt of exempt income during the relevant previous year for purpose of making any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act….” Para 8-Conclusion Section 2(22)(e) do not apply when transactions…
Read more

14A, 2(22)(e), 48, 50C, AY 2013-14, Decisions, Delhi, Delhi Tribunal, In Favour of Assessee, In favour of Assessee (Partly), Section 32

Section 43(1), 143(3), 263 ITAT KOLKATA on May 29, 2020 hold that the industrial promotion assistance it received was on capital account.

Section 43(1), 143(3), 263 ITAT KOLKATA on May 29, 2020 hold that the industrial promotion assistance it received was on capital account. Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Pony Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (supra) has made it clear that for determining the…
Read more

143(3), 263-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue, 43(1), AY 2010-11, In Favour of Assessee, Kolkata tribunal