-
S. 2(14)(iii) : Capital asset – Agricultural land – Land continued to be agricultural land in the revenue records – located 20 kms. away from municipal corporation limits – Cutting and carrying away of rubber trees did not change classification of land from agricultural to non-agricultural land – User by buyer is not relevant for assessing the gain in the hands of the assesse – Not liable to be assessed as capital gains [S. 45]
The assessee sold the agricultural land. As per the condition of MOA the assessee agreed to cut and carry away all rubber trees on said land at his own expenses before sale. Land continued to be agricultural land in the revenue records and the land is located 20 kms. away from municipal corporation limits. The Assessing Officer held that with cutting and carrying away of rubber trees land became barren land and a barren land could not be treated as agricultural land and, further, KSIDC, in due course of time, upon purchase from assessee, converted said land into an industrial Estate. The Assessing Officer assessed the gain on sale of said land as liable to capital gains tax. The Tribunal held that the sale of agricultural land cannot be assessed as capital gains. On appeal by the revenue land the Court held that the land in question was located 20 kms. away from municipal corporation limits. Assessee had demonstrated that classification of land continued to be an agricultural land in revenue records even as on date of sale. Land was put to use only for agricultural purposes by assessee. The assessee could not be expected to have control over activities of buyer once transfer was completed. Cutting and carrying away of rubber trees did not change classification of land from agricultural to non-agricultural land. Order of Tribunal was affirmed. (AY. 1996-97)
CIT v. Cochin Malabar Estates & Industries Ltd. (2021) 208 DTR 119 / (2022) 440 ITR 121 / 324 CTR 246 / 134 taxmann.com 162 (Ker)(HC)
-
S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend – Advance against sale of commercial space – Addition cannot be made as deemed dividend.
Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that Tribunal had given findings of fact that advance received by assessee from company was not in nature of loan or advances as contemplated in section 2(22)(e), but was trade advance against booking of commercial place being built by assessee. Deletion of addition was affirmed.
PCIT v. Anumod Sharma (2021) 283 Taxman 564 (Delhi) (HC)
-
S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Capital or revenue-Non-compete fee-Sharing customer database and sharing of trained employees-Fee received is not taxable. [S. 28(i)]
Held the non-compete fee was received for sharing the customer database and sharing of trained employees. The receipt towards the transfer was not attributable to transfer of any assets or right and from the mere fact that the receipt was not attributable to the non-compete covenant, it could not be automatically concluded that the receipt was either from business or income of an activity recurring in nature. The amount was not assessable. (AY.1997-98)
CIT v. ABB Ltd. (2021)439 ITR 554 (Karn.)(HC)
-
S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Capital or revenue – Sale of emission reduction credit – Capital receipt [S. 28(i)]
Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held the sale of certified emission reduction credit, which the assessee had earned on the clean development mechanism in its wind energy operations, is a capital receipt and not taxable. (AY. 2009-10)
CIT v. Wescare (India) Ltd. (2021) 439 ITR 657 (Mad.)(HC)
-
S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Capital or revenue – Sale of Certified Emission Reduction Credit – Not assessable as business income [S. 28(i)]
Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that the proceeds realized by assessee engaged in wind power project on sale of Certified Emission Reduction Credit, which assessee had earned on Clean Development Mechanism in its wind energy operations was not an off-shoot of business, but an offshoot of environmental concerns and hence being a capital receipt would not be taxable. (AY. 2009-10)
CIT v. Prabhu Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. (2021) 283 Taxman 89 (Mad.) (HC)
-
S. 10(23C) : Educational institution – Computation of income -Receipt from education institution was less than 1 Crore – Entitle to exemption – Receipts of educational institution cannot be clubbed with other income of the society for the purpose of computing exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act. [S. 10(23C)(iiiad), 12AA, IT Rules, 1962, 2BC]
Assessee-society established an educational institution. Assessing Officer disallowed the exemption on ground that excess income over expenditure of said institution run by assessee was carried to account of society for taxation and other purpose and since aggregate of fee receipts of institution and receipts of society exceeded prescribed upper limit of Rs. 1 crore. The order of the Assessing was affirmed by the Tribunal. On appeal the Court held that the receipts of Institution were below Rs. 1 crore. In the computation of income Assessing Officer himself recognized and acknowledged difference between receipts of institution and receipts of society. Allowing the appeal the Court held that the receipts of institution could not be clubbed with other income of assessee-society for purpose of considering benefit of section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act.. The Court also observed that the Tribunal was erred in looking at the provisions of section 12AA of the Act. Exemption was allowed. (AY. 2007-08)
Manas Sewa Samiti v. Add. CIT (2021) 323 CTR 737 / 208 DTR 41 (2022) 284 taxman 418 (All)(HC)
-
S. 10(26B): Income of Body Corporation established or wholly financed by Central or State Government for promoting interests of Scheduled castes or Scheduled Tribes – Engaged in work of development of National Safai Karamcharis who were involved in upliftment of Safai Karamcharis and Manual Scavengers who belong to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or Other Backward Classes and also in inhumane practice of scavenging and other sanitation activities-Entitle to exemption.
Held that the assessee company was fully owned by Government of India and engaged in work of development of National Safai Karamcharis who were involved in upliftment of Safai Karamcharis and Manual Scavengers who belong to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or Other Backward Classes and also in inhumane practice of scavenging and other sanitation activities, it would be entitled to claim benefit of section 10(26B) of the Act. (AY. 2017-18)
CIT(E) v. National Safai Karamcharis Finance and Development Corporation (2021) 283 Taxman 576/ 323 CTR 816/ 208 DTR 57 (Delhi) (HC
-
S. 10B : Export oriented undertakings-Manufacture-Blending of Tea does not constitute manufacture-Not entitled to exemption-Interpretation of taxing statute-Provision for exemption-In case of ambiguity in an exemption provision the benefit has to go to the revenue.
The term “manufacture” was not defined in the substituted provisions as was available before its substitution to include even processing. Explanations to this section define certain terms used. Explanation 3 was added in the section which begins with the words “for the removal of doubts”. It is to treat the profits and gains derived from onsite development of computer software outside India as income deemed to be derived from export of computer. Explanation 4 was added by the Finance Act, 2003, with effect from April 1, 2004 to define “manufacture or produce” to include cutting and polishing of precious and semi precious stones. The insertion of Explanation 4 clearly establishes the fact that wherever the benefit was to be extended, the needful was done. It had been authoritatively held by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Tara Agencies (2007) 292 ITR 444 (SC) that mixing of different kinds of tea does not fall within the ambit of manufacturing. Court held that blending of tea does not amount to manufacture and the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of section 10B. Court also held that while interpreting the provision for exemption, in case of ambiguity in an exemption provision the benefit has to go to the revenue. Followed Commissioner Customs v. Dilip Kumar and Co. (2018) 6GSTR-OL-46 (SC). (AY.2002-03 to 2005-06)
PCIT v. V. N. Enterprises Limited (2021) 439 ITR 624 (Cal.)(HC)
CIT v. Tea Promoters (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 439 ITR 624 (Cal.)(HC)
-
S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes-Improve public transport system in the country and the road safety standards-Revenue from laboratory testing and consultancy-Not to earn profit for share holders-Entitle to exemption-Proviso to section 2(15) is not applicable-No substantial question of law. [S. 2(15)]
Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held the association has not been earning any profit as the main object of the assessee-association is to improve the public transport system in the country and the road safety standards. Undoubtedly, the activities of laboratory testing and consultancy are bringing revenue to the assessee-association but the intent of such activities is not to earn profit for its shareholders/owners.. No question of law Followed Ram Kumar Aggarwal & Anr. vs. Thawar Das (through LRs), (1999) 7 SCC 303 has reiterated that under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure the jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with the orders passed by the Courts below is confined to hearing on substantial question of law and interference with finding of the fact is not warranted if it involves re-appreciation of evidence. there is no perversity in the findings of the ITAT. Referred State of Hryana & Ors v. Khalsa Motor Ltd (1990) 4 SCC 659, Hero Vinoth (Minor)) v. Thawar Das Through LRs (1999) 7 SCC 303.
CIT (E) v. Association of State Road Transport Undertakings (2021) 208 DTR 313 /324 DTR 165 (Delhi) (HC)
-
S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes-Running a printing press and publishing a news paper-Profit generated was ploughed back to charitable activities-Entitle to exemption [S. 2(15) 10(23C)(vi), 12A, 80G]
Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that object of the society is charitable in nature and the profit earned from running a printing press and publishing a news paper was ploughed back to charitable activities. The assessee is entitle to exemption. Proviso to section 2(15) is not applicable.
PCIT v. Servants of People Society (2021) 208 DTR 409 (2022) 324 CTR 167 /133 taxmann.com 244 (Delhi) (HC)
-
S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes – Charitable purpose – Objects of general public utility – Improve public transport system – Revenue from testing automobile parts and consultancy charges – Entitle to exemption [S. 2(15)]
Assessee is an apex co-ordinating body of all nationalized State Road Transport Corporation working under aegis of Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India.Its main object was to improve public transport system in country. It also earned revenue from laboratory testing of automobiles and consultancy services. Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that merely because the had receipts under head revenue from testing laboratory and consultancy receipts which were of commercial nature, it could not be said that activities of assessee did not fall under categories of education, medical relief, relief to poor, preservation of environment and, hence, assessee-association was charitable in nature.
CIT (E) v. Association of State Road Transport Undertakings (2021) 283 Taxman 555 (Delhi) (HC)
-
S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes-Engaged in promotion of rapid and orderly establishment, growth and development of industries in State and provided for industrial infrastructural facilities-Object of general public utility, proviso to section 2(15) was not applicable-Entitle for exemption [S. 2(15, 12AA]
Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that the asseessee which is engaged in promotion of rapid and orderly establishment, growth and development of industries in State and provided for industrial infrastructural facilities. Object of general public utility, proviso to section 2(15) was not applicable. Entitle for exemption. Followed Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board v. ADDIT(E) (2020) 277 Taxman 36 (Karn)(HC) (AY. 2013-14)
PCIT(E) v. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (2021) 130 taxmann.com 407 (Karn) (HC)
Editorial : SLP is granted to the revenue, PCIT(E) v. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (2021) 283 Taxman 10(SC)
-
S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes-Construction of building for Government-Commission from Government-Involves carrying on of activity in the nature of trade commerce or business-Denial of exemption is held to be justified [S. 2(15), 12A]
One of the objects of the assessee is to take up construction work of any nature to establish a chain of retail outlets. In the relevant financial year the assessee completed 34 building projects. The Assessing Officer denied the exemption which was affirmed by the Tribunal. On appeal the Court held that purpose of construction of building for Government cannot be accepted as an activity coming within the meaning of advancement of any other object of general public utility. Denial of exemption was held to be justified. (AY. 2019 10, 2013-14)
Nirmithi Kendra v. Dy. CIT (E) (2021) 323 CTR 865 (Ker) / 208 DTR 249 (Ker) (HC)
-
S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes-Construction of building for Government-Commission from Government-Involves carrying on of activity in the nature of trade commerce or business-Denial of exemption is held to be justified [S. 2(15), 12A]
One of the objects of the assessee is to take up construction work of any nature to establish a chain of retail outlets. In the relevant financial year the assessee completed 34 building projects. The Assessing Officer denied the exemption which was affirmed by the Tribunal. On appeal the Court held that purpose of construction of building for Government cannot be accepted as an activity coming within the meaning of advancement of any other object of general public utility. Denial of exemption was held to be justified.(AY. 2019 10,, 2013-14)
Nirmithi Kendra v. Dy. CIT (E) (2021) 323 CTR 865 (Ker) / 208 DTR 249 (Ker) (HC)
-
S. 17(2) : Perquisite-Permission for providing COVID treatment-Show cause notice-Revocation of permission was lifted-Order was set aside [S. 15, 17(ii)(b),ITATR, 1962, R. 3A, Art, 226]
Petitioner-hospital filed application seeking renewal of approval under clause (ii)(b) of proviso to section 17(2)(viii) of the Act. Revenue issued show cause notice and rejected the application on ground that State Government had cancelled permission granted to petitioner for providing COVID treatment. On writ allowing the petition the Court held that since revocation of permission was later lifted by the State Government and petitioner was permitted to provide treatment, very basis of show cause notice stood removed order was to be set aside.
Park Health System (P) Ltd v. P CIT (2021) 323 CTR 628 / 208 DTR 12 (Telangana) (HC)
-
S. 28(i) : Business income-Sale of technical know how – Cost was claimed as revenue expenditure-Receipt assessable as business income. [S. 56]
Court held that in the first round of litigation, after rejecting the claim of the assessee that the transaction was a slump sale, the Tribunal held that if the assessee treated the cost and expenses relating to acquisition and improvement and development of intangible non-depreciable assets in the revenue field the gains arising as a result of sale thereof would have to be necessarily treated in the revenue field either under section 28 or section 56. The order passed by the Tribunal at the first instance had reached finality. Hence the amount was assessable. (AY.1997-98)
CIT v. ABB Ltd. (2021) 439 ITR 554 (Karn.)(HC)
-
S. 28(i) : Business income-lease rent-Scheme sanctioned by BIFR-Assessable as business income. [S. 14]
Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that the assessee was obligated to work under a statutory approved scheme; the lease of eight years was to ATL, which was in the same business and the lease was for utilising the plant, machinery, etc. for manufacturing tyres; the actuals were reimbursed to assessee by ATL; the work force of the assessee had been deployed for manufacturing tyres; the total production from the assessee unit was taken over by ATL; over all affairs of assessee company were made viable by entering into settlement; coupled with all other primary circumstances, the assessee employed commercial assets to earn income. The scheme was for providing a solution to the business problem of the assessee. The claim of lease rental receipt as income of business was justifiable for the assessment years. (AY.1996-97 to 2003-04)
CIT v. Premier Tyres Ltd. (2021) 439 ITR 346 (Ker.)(HC)
CIT v. PTL Enterprises Ltd. (2021) 439 ITR 346 (Ker.)(HC)
-
S. 28(i) : Business income-Income from lease-Exploitation of property and not exploitation of business assets-Assessable as income from other sources-Quality loss-No business carried on-Not allowable as deduction. [S. 2(14), 56]
Assessee continuing lease agreement and renewing it every year. The assessee claimed the income from lease as business income. the assessing Officer treated the income from other sources. Appellate Tribunal affirmed the view of the Assessing Officer. On appeal the High Court affirmed the order of the Tribunal and held that lease rental was rightly assessed as income from other sources. The court observed that the assessee exploited the property and not exploitation of business assets. Relied on Universal Plast Ltd v. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 454 (SC). Claim of quality loss was not allowed as there was no business was carried on during the relevant years. (AY.2004-05 to 2009-10)
PTL Enterprises Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2021) 439 ITR 365 (Ker.)(HC)
-
S. 28(i) : Business loss-Recording notional loss or profit – Method of accounting – Current assets – Loss on revaluation and sale of bonds-Consistent method-Allowable as business loss. [S. 37(1), 145]
Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that the assessee had got cash only upon sale of the bonds. Till such time the bonds could not be treated as capital asset and not even as stock-in-trade. The assessee had recorded notional loss or profit on revaluation of the earlier years and had followed such procedure in the subject assessment year 1996-97 also. There was consistency in the pattern followed by the assessee and considering the nature of business it was doing the bonds were rightly treated as current assets. The findings of facts recorded by the Tribunal were proper and correct. The option of treating the receivables converted as bonds realisable at a future point of time was tenable and running out of cash reserves the decision to treat the bonds also as receivables had been taken. On the facts, the treatment of an entry in a particular method needed to be appreciated. (AY.1996-97)
CIT v. Bhageeratha Engineering Ltd. (No. 1) (2021) 439 ITR 704 283 Taxman 110 (Ker.)(HC)
-
S. 32 : Depreciation-Roads-Improvement and development of State Highways-Entitle was entitled depreciation prescribed to building.
Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that the Tribunal is justified in holding that although road is certainly not a plant or machinery, it can still be eligible for depreciation as a building, as per Appendix prescribing rate of depreciation which says building includes roads. Followed whether following CIT v. Tamil Nadu Road Development Co Ltd (2021) 279 Taxman 125 (Mad) (HC) (AY. 2002-03 to 2005-06)
CIT v. Tamil Nadu Road Development Co. Ltd. (2021) 283 Taxman 168 (Mad.)
Editorial: Tamil Nadu Road Development Co. Ltd. v. ACIT (2009) 120 ITD 20 (Chennai) (Trib) is affirmed.
-
S. 32 : Depreciation-Plant and machinery-Ponds and reservoirs-Pollution control equipments-Depreciation allowable at 25% as against 100% claimed by the assessee-Approach road, drainage, borewells, reservoirs etc-Depreciation allowable at 10 % as against 25% claimed by the assessee.
The assessee is in the business of prawn cultivation. The assessee claimed depreciation on ponds and reservoirs at 100% treating the same as pollution control equipments. Tribunal affirmed the order of Assessing Officer who allowed the depreciation at 25%. High Court affirmed the order of Tribunal. The assessee also claimed depreciation at 25% on approach road, drainage, borewells, reservoirs etc. The Assessing Officer allowed the depreciation at 10%. The Tribunal affirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. On appeal High Court affirmed the order of Tribunal. (AY. 1994-95, 1995-96)
Industrial Incubators (P) Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2021) 323 CTR 1001 / (2022) 209 DTR 277 (Orissa)(HC)
-
S. 37(1): Business expenditure-Interest-Prepayment premium-Corporate debt restructuring-Allowable as deduction.
Held that one time payment made by assessee towards pre-payment premium and interest compense to banks for agreeing to reduce rate of interest on loan pursuant to Corporate Debt Restructuring was business expenditure to be allowed deduction as revenue expenditure. (AY. 2007-08)
CIT v. Thiru Arooran Sugar Ltd. (2021) 283 Taxman 156 (Mad.)(HC)
-
S. 37(1): Business expenditure-Discount on issue of ESOP-Allowable as deduction.
Held that discount on issue of ESOP was not a contingent liability but an ascertained liability hence the discount on issue of ESOP was an allowable deduction under section 37(1) as same was to be treated as remuneration to employees for their continuity of service. (AY. 2003-04)
CIT(LTU) v. Biocon Ltd. (2021) 131 taxmann.com 187 (Karn) (HC) Editorial : Notice is issued in SLP filed by the revenue, CIT(LTU) v. Biocon Ltd. (2021) 283 Taxman 290 (SC)
-
S. 35D : Amortisation of preliminary expenses-Share premium expenses-Not part of capital employed-Cost of acquisition does not constitute cost of project-cost of acquisition of companies could not be treated as asset for allowing deduction under section 35D.
Dismissing the appeal the Court held that the Tribunal was right in holding that the share premium collected on the issue of share capital by the assessee could not be taken as part of the capital employed for allowing deduction under section 35D. Followed Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT (2017) 393 ITR 113 (SC). Court also held that there is a vast difference between expansion and extension. The Tribunal was right in law in holding that the cost of acquisition of companies could not be treated as asset for allowing deduction under section 35D. (AY.2008-09)
Subex Ltd. v. CIT (2021) 439 ITR 495 (Karn.)(HC)
-
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure –Capital or revenue – Expenditure for raising floor height of Godown – Expenditure incurred to run the business profitably is revenue expenditure.
Where the assessee had incurred expenditure to conduct its business more efficiently and to increase its profits, while no new asset was brought into existence, it would be a revenue expenditure. (AY. 1991 -92)
Jetha Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2022) 440 ITR 524 / 209 DTR 201/ 324 CTR 326 (Bom) ( HC)
-
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Penalty-Not compensatory in nature-Not allowable as deduction. [Kerala General Sales tax Act, 1963, S. 45A]
Dismissing the appeal of the assessee the Court held that in the absence of any material to show that any element of compensation was involved in the penalty imposed under section 45A of the Kerala Act the amount of Rs. 52 lakhs could not be termed as an expenditure for the year 2004-05. (AY. 2004-05)
PTL Enterprises Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2021) 439 ITR 365 (Ker.)(HC)
-
S. 37(1): Business expenditure-Statutory obligation-Contribution to common good fund-Special assistance fund-Allowable as deduction.
Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that the amounts had been spent only out of statutory obligation, amount expended on funds will be allowable as deduction while computing income of assessee co-operative bank, even when said expenditure did not come under section 37(1) of the Act. (AY. 2007-08)
PCIT v. Karnataka State Co-op. Apex Bank Ltd. (2021) 283 Taxman 106 (Karn) (HC)
-
S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Non-resident-Commission charges to overseas agents-Service rendered outside India-Cannot be considered as fes for technical services-Not liable to deduct tax at source-Art, 12-OECD Model convention [S.9(1)(vii)), 195]
Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that the assessee had paid commission charges to overseas agents for services rendered outside India and not any lump sum consideration for rendering managerial, technical or consultancy services, such payments could not be considered as fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Not liable to deduct tax at source. (AY.2013-14, 2014-15)
PCIT v. Gopakumaran Nair (2021) 283 Taxman 173 (Mad.) (HC)
-
S. 40(a)(ia): Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Payment of freight and carriage charges for previous year 2006-07 (1-4-2006 to 31-3-2007)-Disallowance is held to be not valid-Commission payment disallowance is held to be justified. [S.194C]
Assessing Officer had disallowed the payment of freight and carriage charges for failure to deduct tax at source. The Order was affirmed by the Tribunal. on appeal the Court held that since liability for deducting tax at source for payments made to individual contractors above monetary limits arose only with effect from 1-6-2007, for failure to deduct tax at source for previous year 2006-07, (i.e. 1-4-2006 to 31-3-2007), assessee should not be made liable to deduct TDS and, consequently, disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) for non-payment of TDS under section 194C was to be deleted. As regards commission and brokerage and claimed deduction for same but failed to furnish record or material to show that commission or brokerage was paid to different individuals and each one of such payment was less than monetary limit of Rs. 20,000, said sum was to be disallowed for non-deduction of TDS under section 194H of the Act. (AY. 2007-08)
Sudarsanan P.S. v. CIT (2021) 283 Taxman 84 (Ker.)(HC)
-
S. 43B: Deductions on actual payment-Tax paid under Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act-Not allowable as deduction [S. 10(1), 37(1), Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991]
Dismissing the appeal of the assessee the Court held that Agricultural income is excluded from the scope of s. 10(1) of Cent Act. Agricultural income does not form part of computation under Section 14 of the IT Act. Tribunal was justified is holding that agricultural income being exempt from taxation under the Central IT Act, the agricultural income tax paid by the assessee under Kerala Agricultural income Tax Act cannot be allowed as a deduction under the Income tax Act. (AY. 2007-08 to 2010-11, 2012-13)
Oil Palm India Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2021) 208 DTR 345 (Ker.)(HC)
-
S. 48 : Capital gains-Computation-Full value of consideration-Retention of money in Escrow account-Possession was handed over-Amount of money in Escrow account has to be considered while computing the capital gain for the purpose of full consideration. [S. 45]
Assessing Officer held that amount which was kept in escrow account would only constitute an application of its income and whole consideration had to be deemed to accrue to assessee on execution of agreement for sale. Accordingly, capital gain was recomputed. Order of the Assessing Officer was affirmed by the Tribunal. On appeal the Court affirmed the order of Tribunal. (AY. 2003-04)
Caborandum Universal Ltd v. ACIT (2021) 283 Taxman 312 (Mad.) (HC)
-
S. 54F : Capital gains – Investment in a residential house – Relevant is date of acquisition of property and not on date of payment – It is not necessary that same sale consideration should be used for construction of a new house property – Allowed exemption . [ S.45 ]
Assessee transferred shares held by him in two companies on 21-8-2008 and claimed exemption under section 54F on account of purchase of new residential house property for which sale deed was executed on 28-3-2011. Tribunal held that the payment were made prior to one year before date of transfer of shares and, therefore, assessee was not entitled to claim exemption. On appeal the Court held that since sale deed was executed in favour of assessee within a period of three years from date of transfer of shares, finding recorded by Tribunal that payments were made prior to one year before date of transfer of shares was not entitled to claim exemption under section 54F was perverse .Court also observed that for claiming exemption under section 54 of the Act is dependent on date of acquisition of property and not on the date of payment and it is not necessary that same sale consideration should be used for construction of a new house property . (AY. 2009-10)
M. George Joseph v. Dy. CIT (2021) 282 Taxman 386/ 206 DTR 51/ 322 CTR 563/ ( 2022 ) 440 ITR 589 (Karn)(HC)
-
S. 68 : Cash credits-Share application money-Shell companies-Share holders could not explain their source-Addition is held to be justified.
Allowing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that the Assessing Officer clearly brought out as to how so-called investors, who were either shell companies or without any financial capacity, had brought in such monies for purpose of investment. Assessee had not established creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction and thus, failed to discharge primany onus cast upon it. Assessing Officer was justified in making addition under section 68 of the Act. (AY. 2003-04)
CIT v. Midas Golden Distilleries (p) Ltd. (2021) 283 Taxman 395 (Mad) (HC)
-
S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Failure to explain the source-Justified in confirming the disallowance.
Dismissing the appeal the court held that the assessee had failed to furnish relevant details to prove source in respect of claim for deduction, Assessing Officer was justified in holding that amount was incurred out of undisclosed sources and making addition. (AY. 2007-08)
Sudarsanan P.S. v. CIT (2021) 283 Taxman 84 (Ker.)(HC)
-
S. 80HHB : Projects outside India-Gross total income-Additional deduction to be computed on the basis of recomputed gross total income.
Allowing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that by virtue of the decision of the Tribunal the claim of the assessee for loss on revaluation and sale of Government bonds had been accepted. In accounting parlance, these items were to be deleted from the gross total income of the assessee. The quantification under section 80HHB should have been done correspondingly. The deduction under section 80HHB under the quantifying order dated July 28, 2003 was correct. (AY.1996-97)
CIT v. Bhageeratha Engineering Ltd. (No. 2) (2021) 439 ITR 713 (Ker.)(HC)
-
S. 80HHC : Export business-Deduction granted under section 80IB must be excluded. [S. 8IA(9), 80IB]
Dismissing the appeal of the assessee the Court held that, the provisions are explicit that if any deduction is claimed and allowed under section 80-IA as an eligible business, the assessee cannot claim deduction to the extent of such profits and gains coming under other heads of deduction of Chapter VI-A of the Act. Section 80HHC which relates to deductions in respect of the profits and gains from export business falls under the heading “C” of Chapter VI-A. There is no ambiguity in section 80-IA(9) of the Act. The intention of the Legislature is clear that there cannot be a simultaneous deduction under section 80-IA and under section 80HHC. The profits and gains allowed as deduction under section 80-IA have to be excluded while computing the deduction under section 80HHC.(AY.2000-01, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05)
Kanam Latex Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2021) 439 ITR 218 (Ker.)(HC)
-
S. 80P : Co-operative societies – Society formed for enabling financial and social welfare of toddy tappers and workers for tapping and selling toddy — Could not be considered co-operative society engaged in collective disposal of labour of its members — Eligibility of assessee for deduction as society engaged in marketing of agricultural produce grown by its members — Matter remitted to Tribunal.[S.80P(2)(a)(vi)]
The assessee, a registered co-operative society formed in the year 2001 for enabling financial and social welfare of toddy tappers and workers for tapping and selling toddy within the Hosdurg jurisdiction, claimed exemption under section 80P(2)(a)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The AO denied the said exemption on ground that assessee-society was granted registration as a miscellaneous society and, thus, could not be treated as a society engaged in collective disposal of labour of its member. On appeal, the assessee contended that toddy vending by members of assessee-society was for marketing agricultural produce grown by its members which was dealt in sub-clause (iii) of section 80P(2)(a), therefore, its claim for deduction of income earned by society under section 80P(2)(a) was legitimate. The Tribunal merely upheld the decision of the AO. On appeal to the High Court:
HELD:
(i) that the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee-society could not be considered a co-operative society engaged in the collective disposal of labour of its 2016 members as contemplated under section 80P(2)(a)(vi) of the Act and therefore was not eligible for deduction under section 80P of the Act. Decision in Peravoor Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangham v. CIT (2016) 380 ITR 34 (Ker) was followed.
(ii) That on the issue of eligibility of the assessee for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act the matter was to be remitted to the Tribunal for consideration and disposal, in accordance with law. (AY. 2009 -10, 2010 -11, 2011 -12)
Hosdurg Range Kallu Chethu Thozhilali Vyavasaya Sahakarana Sangham v. CIT (2022) 440 ITR 65 (Ker) (HC)
-
S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-TNM method-Transaction of buying services for sourcing garments in India-Addition made to ALP by applying cost plus 5 per cent mark-up on FOB value of exports among third parties was not supported under rule 10B(1)(e) and was liable to be deleted. [R. 10B(1)(e)]
Assessee, a subsidiary of a Mauritius based company, had entered into an international transaction of buying services for sourcing garments, leather etc. in India for its AE and computed ALP of said transaction by adopting TNM method.Assessing Officer accepted application of TNMM by assessee as most appropriate method however addition made by TPO in assessee’s ALP by applying cost plus 5 per cent mark-up on FOB value of exports among third parties. Tribunal deleted the addition which was affirmed by the High Court. (AY. 2011-12)
PCIT v. Li & Fung (India) P. Ltd. (2021) 130 taxmann.com 438 (Delhi) (HC)
Editorial : SLP is granted to the revenue ; PCIT v. Li & Fung (India) P. Ltd. (2021) 283 Taxman 4 (SC)
-
S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Functionally different-Justified in directing for exclusion of ABCL from the list of comparables-Interest receivable-Notional interest for relating to alleged delayed in collecting receivable-No substantial question of law-Question as to whether in a given case transfer pricing adjustment on delayed receivable could apply even to a debt-free company or not. does not arise on facts and is left open [S. 260A]
Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that the Tribunal is justified in directing for exclusion of ABCL from the list of comparables. Court also held that there can be no notional computation of delayed receivables’ only ignoring the receivables received in advance. Appeal was dismissed. Question as to whether in a given case transfer pricing adjustment on delayed receivable could apply even to a debt-free company or not. does not arise on facts and is left open.(AY. 2014-15)
PCIT v. Mckinsey Knowledge Centre India (P) Ltd. (2021) 323 CTR 360/ 207 DTR 60 (Delhi) (HC)
-
S. 115JB : Book profit-Provision for bad and doubtful debts-Corresponding amount reduced from loans and advances on assets side of balance sheet-Net provision is shown-Provision not to be added in computing book profit. [S. 36(1)(vii)]
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had simultaneously obliterated the provision from its accounts by reducing the corresponding amount from the loans and advances on the assets side of the balance-sheet and consequently, at the end of the year shown the loans and advances on the assets side of the balance sheet as net of the provision for bad debts, it would amount to a write-off and such actual write-off would not be hit by clause (i) of the Explanation to section 115JB. On appeal dismissing the appeal the Court held that the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition on account of the provision for bad and doubtful debts in the computation of the book profits for computation of minimum alternate tax liability in the light of clause (i) of the Explanation to section 115JB.(AY.2004-05)
PCIT v. Narmada Chematur Petrochemicals Ltd. (2021) 439 ITR 761 (Guj.)(HC)
-
S. 127 : Power to transfer cases – Assigning of reasons in notice — Search proceedings showing that assessee residing in Nagaland and had financial interests in Kerala — Transfer for purposes of co-ordinated investigation — Cogent and credible reasons assigned in notice — notice sent to registered office in Kerala and received by Assessee — Order for transfer valid [Rule 127 of the Income-tax Rules]
The S group of companies was promoted by the assessee, MKRP and the other assessees were his wife, sons and daughter. The entities of the S group were located in Nagaland and in Kerala. Subsequent to a search and seizure conducted under section 132 in their business and residential premises, assessment and reassessments were made. Thereafter, notices were issued and the cases were transferred under section 127 from Dimapur, Nagaland to Kollam, Kerala. Writ petitions were filed by all the assessees before the High Court. The assessees alleged that the transfer had been done without proper notice and without assigning any reasons as to why such transfer was being made, thus in violation of section 127. Further, it was argued that since the notice itself was not served upon the assessee as was liable to have been done under the provisions contained in the Income-tax Act and the rules framed therein, it was also violative of section 282 as well as rule 127 of the Income-tax Rules.
The single judge allowed the petitions and gave an opportunity to the Revenue to proceed afresh against the assessees by giving fresh notices under section 127 and accordingly fresh notices were issued. The notice issued to the assessee, MKRP stated that the assessees were either partners or directors in the various firms and companies of the S group which were all based in Kerala, that over several years he had directed the transfer of sums of money from several bank accounts in Nagaland to his family businesses and family members who were all based in Kerala, that it was manifest from the modus operandi followed by him that although the source of funds lay in Nagaland, its ultimate destination was in assets in Kerala belonging to him or his family members and to the businesses controlled and managed by him or his family members in Kerala, that his financial interests were centered largely in Kerala, and the undisclosed investments admitted by the assessee were also in Kerala and that therefore, the cases were transferred to Assistant Commissioner, Kollam, Kerala so as to facilitate the assessments. The order further stated that when nobody made representation before the concerned authority which had passed the transfer order, another notice was sent which was returned with a remark “Addressee unclaimed – return to sender” and thereafter, the order of transfer of cases were passed. The single judge dismissed the writ petitions filed against the fresh transfer orders. On appeals:
Held, dismissing the appeals, that cogent and credible reasons were assigned in the notices issued by the authorities as required under section 127 for transfer of the cases. Such transfer of cases had to be made on administrative exigencies and for better assessment by the Revenue and the authorities were the best judge in such matters. As far as the service of the notices was concerned, the single judge had examined in detail in his order wherein he had held that notices were sent twice. It was admitted that the first notice was served at the assessees’ address in Kerala. It was not the case that the notices were sent to the wrong address. The notices were sent at the registered address of the company in Kerala which had also been received by the assessees, a fact which had been reiterated over and again by the Revenue and had not been negated by the assessees. It was therefore sufficient compliance under rule 127 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 as the notices were sent at the registered office of the assessees’ company. Since no response was filed, notices were sent again. Unlike the first time, the second time it came with an endorsement of the postal authority that it was “unclaimed”. A presumption could be drawn that when the first time notices were received at the same address, the second notices could not remain “unclaimed” and therefore, the plea of the assessees that the second time notices were never received by them had been rightly rejected by the single judge. The only requirement of the law was that while passing an order of transfer, the reasons must be assigned. The orders of transfer of cases need not be interfered with.
Varun Raj Pillai v. PCIT (2022) 440 ITR 47 (Gau)( HC)
-
S. 127 : Power to transfer cases – Assigning of reasons in notice — Search proceedings showing that assessee residing in Nagaland and had financial interests in Kerala — Transfer for purposes of co-ordinated investigation — Cogent and credible reasons assigned in notice — Notice sent to registered office in Kerala and received by Assessee — Order for transfer valid [S. 132 ITR Rule 127, Art. 226]
Held, dismissing the appeals against the order of single judge the Court held that cogent and credible reasons were assigned in the notices issued by the authorities as required under section 127 for transfer of the cases. Such transfer of cases had to be made on administrative exigencies and for better assessment by the Revenue and the authorities were the best judge in such matters. As far as the service of the notices was concerned, the single judge had examined in detail in his order wherein he had held that notices were sent twice. It was admitted that the first notice was served at the assessees’ address in Kerala. It was not the case that the notices were sent to the wrong address. The notices were sent at the registered address of the company in Kerala which had also been received by the assessees, a fact which had been reiterated over and again by the Revenue and had not been negated by the assessees. It was therefore sufficient compliance under rule 127 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 as the notices were sent at the registered office of the assessees’ company. Since no response was filed, notices were sent again. Unlike the first time, the second time it came with an endorsement of the postal authority that it was “unclaimed”. A presumption could be drawn that when the first time notices were received at the same address, the second notices could not remain “unclaimed” and therefore, the plea of the assessees that the second time notices were never received by them had been rightly rejected by the single judge. The only requirement of the law was that while passing an order of transfer, the reasons must be assigned. The orders of transfer of cases need not be interfered with.
Varun Raj Pillai v. PCIT (2022) 440 ITR 47 (Gauhati)( HC)
-
S. 132(4) : Search and seizure-Statement on oath-Undisclosed income-Retraction-Failure to produce any evidence contrary to the statement-Order of Tribunal is affirmed [S. 132]
On the basis of statement recorded in the course of search and seizure action addition was made in the assessment. The addition was affirmed by the Tribunal. On appeal the High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and directed to decide in accordance with law. The Tribunal once again passed the order confirming the addition on the ground that the assesee has not produced any evidence contrary to the material placed before the Tribunal. On appeal the High Court affirmed the order of the Tribunal. (BP. 1989-90 to 22nd June 1998.)
Nayaar Patel v. ACIT (2021) 323 CTR 1005 (Ker)(HC)
-
S. 132B : Application of seized or requisitioned assets-Jewellery seized-Failure to pass an order within period of 120 days on which last authorisation of search was executed-Entire jewellery seized was directed to be released [S. 132, Art, 226]
In the course of search jewellery and cash of certain amount was seized. The Assessee filed an application under section 132B for release of seized jewellery.No action was taken by revenue on said application filed by assessee within stipulated period of 120 days from date on which last authorisation for search was executed under section 132 of the Act.On writ the Court held that provisions of section 132B got triggered, once period of 120 days from date of last of authorisation for search under section 132 expired,therefore, entire seized jewellery was to be released to assessee. (AY.2015-16, 2018-19)
Kamlesh Gupta v. UOI (2021) 283 Taxman 237 (Delhi) (HC)
-
S. 139 : Return of income-Voluntary retirement scheme-Bank employee-Claimed exemption after by filing the letter after passing of assessment order-Filing the revised return-Delay was not condoned by CBDT-High Court directed the CBDT to condone the delay and grant refund without interest. [S. 10(10C), 89(1), 119(2)(b), 139(5), 143(1), Art. 226]
The assessee did not claim exemption under section 10(10C) of the Act the on the superannuation benefit amount. An assessment order was passed/s 143(1) of the Act, wherein the Assessing Officer stated that no exemption under section 10(10CC) was claimed but only relief under section 89(1) was claimed. The assessee filed rectification application to the Assessing Officer by a letter dated March 18, 2008 stating that the amount of superannuation benefit was not taken into consideration for tax exemption. As no response was received the assessee filed a revised return and filed an application seeking condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b)of the Act. The application was rejected as time barred on the ground that Circular No. 9 of 2015 dated June 9, 2015 ([2015] 374 ITR (St.) 25) of the Central Board of Direct Taxes did not permit condoning the delay beyond the period of six years. On writ the Court held that the assessee’s entitlement to exemption under section 10C) was noticed by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer’s observation in his assessment order regarding exemption under section 10(10C) indicated that he was aware of non-claiming of the exemption by the assessee. Prima facie an order considering the letter of the assessee, dated March 18, 2008, as a rectification application and passing an order would be a legally justifiable order. As no order was passed, the assessee had decided to explore the possibility of filing a revised return. In view of Circular No. 014 (XL-35) dated 11-4-1955 and the peculiar facts of the case, including that letter that could be construed to be a rectification application was not decided, on the merits of the claim for exemption, the revised return could be considered. The reasons assigned while seeking condonation of delay were satisfactory. The order rejecting the condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b) was set aside and the delay was condoned. As regards the grant of refund, eventually on account of the delay, there would be exclusion of interest on the amount of refund. The court made it clear that the order had been passed in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and accordingly, could not be considered to have laid down the law as regards the aspect of condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b) or on other issues dealt with. (AY.2004-05)
Devendra Pai v. ACIT (2021) 439 ITR 532 (Karn.)(HC)
-
S. 143(3) : Assessment –Show cause notice granting time of only four days – Assessment order passed in violation of principles of natural justice to be set aside. [Art , 226]
Where the show cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer only granted a period of four days for filing the details and the assessee requested for an accommodation of fifteen days. As the limitation for passing the assessment order was not expiring for another two months, and yet, the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order without granting an adjournment and without even referring to the request for adjournment, the order was to be set aside. (AY. 2018-19)
Deepak Garg v. UOI [2022] 440 ITR 575 (Delhi) (HC)
-
S. 143(3): Assessment-Cash credits-Natural justice-COVID-19-Failure to grant reasonable opportunity for furnishing details-Assessment order was set aside [S. 68, 132 Art, 226]
In notice, several details were asked from assessee which were to be produced within two or three days which was not complied within such short possible time during COVID-19 pandemic period. The Assessment was completed by making huge additions. On writ allowing the petition the Court held that it could not be reasonably expected that assessee would be able to collect all documents and produce before revenue within 2 to 3 days. The order was set aside with the direction to grant some more opportunity produce those documents. Matter was remanded. (SJ)
Manickam Subramanian v. ACIT (2021) 283 Taxman 32 (Mad.) (HC)
-
S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Principle of Natural justice is violated-Cash credits-Order was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing-Order was set aside [S. 68, 142(1), 143(3), Art, 226]
The assessment order was passed making addition u/s 68 of the Act, without issuing the show cause notice. On writ the Court held that the issuance of show cause notice is the preliminary step is required to be understanding. The purpose of show cause notice is to enable a party effectively deal with the case made out by the respondent. On the facts the addition was made without issue of show cause notice, the order was quashed and set aside. Followed Om shri Jigar Association v.UOI,1994 SCC Online.Guj 77.
Shreji Investment & Advisory Services v. NFSC (2021) 207 DTR 357/ 323 CTR 505 (Bom)(HC)
-
S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Principle of Natural justice is violated-Cash credits-Order was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing-Order was set aside [S. 68, 142(1), 143(3), Art, 226]
The assessment order was passed making addition u/s 68 of the Act, without issuing the show cause notice. On writ the Court held that the issuance of show cause notice is the preliminary step is required to be understanding. The purpose of show cause notice is to enable a party effectively deal with the case made out by the respondent. On the facts the addition was made without issue of show cause notice, the order was quashed and set aside. Followed Om shri Jigar Association v. UOI, 1994 SCC Online.Guj 77.
Shreji Investment & Advisory Services v. NFSC (2021) 207 DTR 357/ 323 CTR 505 (Bom)(HC)
-
S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Violation of principle of natural justice-Order passed without giving a reasonable opportunity-Order was quashed and directed to pass appropriate orders on merits in accordance with law [S. 143(3), Art, 226]
Allowing the petition the Court held that the order has been passed without following the principles of natural justice is liable to be quashed. The respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The assessee is also directed to file reply within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (SJ)
Sathya Jyothi Films v. NFAC (2021) 208 DTR 102 (Mad) (HC)
-
S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Violation of principle of natural justice-Issue of show cause notice and draft assessment order is mandatory-Assessment order, notice of demand and penalty notice was quashed-Matter was remanded back to Assessing Officer, who shall issue a draft assessment order and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law [S.143(3), 144B(7) 156, 271AAC, Art, 226]
Assessment order was passed without issue of show cause notice and draft assessment order. On writ the Court held that there was a blatant violation of principles of natural justice as well as mandatory procedure prescribed in Faceless Assessment Scheme. The assessment order, notice of demand and notice of penalty were set aside and matter was remanded back to Assessing Officer who shall issue a draft assessment order and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. (AY. 2018-19)
Akashganga Infraventures India Ltd. v. NFAC (2021) 283 Taxman 37 (Delhi) (HC)
-
S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Violation of principle of natural justice-Order passed without issuing a mandatory draft assessment order-Assessment order, notice of demand and penalty notice was quashed-Revenue was given an opportunity to pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with law. [143(3), 156, 270A,271AAC, Art, 226]
Assessment order was passed without issuing a mandatory draft assessment order or a show cause notice to assessee. On writ the Court held that order passed without issuing a mandatory draft assessment order and show cause notice being contrary to statutory scheme, as provided in section 144B of the Act, the assessment order issued under section 144, read with section 144B as well as demand notice issued under section 156 and notice for initiating penalty proceedings issued under sections 270A and 271AAC(I) were set aside. Revenue was given an opportunity to pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with law. (AY. 2018-19)
Anju Jalaj Batra v. NEAC (2021) 283 Taxman 81 (Delhi) (HC)
-
S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Violation of principle of natural justice-Order was set aside-Liberty to Assessing Officer to continue assessment proceedings from stage at which they were positioned when show cause notice was issued [S. 143(3), Art, 226]
Allowing the petition the court held that the assessment order having been passed without providing adequate opportunity to submit reply in response to notice to show cause-cum-draft assessment order as time frame set out in show cause notice was extremely narrow and e-filing portal was allegedly dysfunctional, impugned assessment order was to be set aside with liberty to Assessing Officer to continue assessment proceedings from stage at which they were positioned when show cause notice was issued.
Centum Finance Ltd v. NFAC(2021) 283 Taxman 232 (Delhi) (HC)
-
S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Violation of principles of natural justice-Reply filed to show cause notice was not considered-Order was quashed-Assessing Officer was directed to re do the assessment afresh [Art, 226]
Against the order passed u/s 144B of the Act, the assessee filed writ before the High Court. Allowing the petition the Court held that the order was bad on account of violation of principles of natural justice and, consequently, assessment order was to be quashed and Assessing Officer was directed to re-do assessment afresh. (AY. 2018-19)
Ezhome Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. ITO (2021) 283 Taxman 567 (Ker) (HC)
-
S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Violation of principle of natural justice-Portal was not working-Failure to file reply-Order was passed without giving reasons-Order was set aside [Art, 226]
A notice-cum-draft assessment order was served upon the assessee proposing an addition of huge amount against return income. Assessee failed to file its reply to said notice-cum-draft assessment order as portal of assessee was not working between 1-6-2021 and 17-6-2021 i.e. last date for filing reply to said notice-cum-draft assessment order. Assessing Officer passed a final assessment order copying such proposed additions to income of assessee without giving any reason. On writ the Court held that the assessment order passed by Assessing Officer was in violation of principal of natural justice inasmuch as assessee did not have a reasonable opportunity to file a reply to notice-cum-draft assessment order and, thus, same was to be set aside. (AY. 2018-19)
Faqir Chand v. NEAC(2021) 283 Taxman 51 (Delhi) (HC)
-
S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Violation of principle of natural justice-Order passed without issuing show cause notice and draft assessment order-Order set aside [S. 144B(9), Art, 226]
Allowing the petition the court held that the final assessment order had been passed without issuing a show-cause notice and draft assessment order, department’s action was violative of principles of natural justice and provisions of section 144B of the Act. The assessment order was set aside and matter was remanded back to Assessing Officer. (AY. 2018-19)
Floral Realcon (P) Ltd. v. National Faceless Assessment Centre (2021) 283 Taxman 488 (Delhi) (HC)
-
S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Violation of principle of natural justice-Order passed without issuing show cause notice and draft assessment order-Order was set aside and remanded with the direction too pass a reasoned order in accordance with law [S. 143(3), 144B(7), Art, 226]
Allowing the petition the Court held that section 144B (7) mandatorily provides for issuance of a prior show cause notice and draft assessment order before issuing final assessment order. When there was no prior show cause notice as well as draft assessment order had been issued before passing assessment order in faceless manner, there was a violation of principles of natural justice as well as mandatory procedure prescribed in Faceless Assessment Scheme’ and stipulated in section 144B of the Act. The order was set aside and directed the Assessing Officer to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. (AY 2018-19)
Globe Capital Foundation v. National E-assessment Centre. (2021) 283 Taxman 411 (Delhi) (HC)
-
S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Violation of principle of natural justice-No draft assessment order was passed-Order was set aside [S. 143(3), Art, 226]
Allowing the petition the Court held that the assessment proceeding had been completed in violation of principle of natural justice and no draft assessment order was passed. Assessment order was set aside. along with notice of demand arising therefrom were to be set aside. (AY. 2017-18)
International Management v. NFAC (2021) 283 Taxman 78 (Delhi) (HC)
-
S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Violation of principle of natural justice-Order passed without issuing show cause notice and draft assessment order-Order was set aside and remanded [Art, 226]
Allowing the petition the Court held that the Assessing Officer passed a final assessment order without issuing a show cause notice and passing a draft assessment order, the assessment order was to be set aside and matter remanded. (AY. 2014-15)
Javin Construction (P) Ltd v. NFAC(2021) 283 Taxman 42 (Delhi) (HC)
-
S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Violation of principle of natural justice-No show cause notice and draft assessment order was issued-Assessment order was set aside and remanded back to Assessing Officer [Art, 226]
Allowing the petition the Court held that the order passed without issue of show cause notice and draft assessment order is violation of principles of natural justice as well as mandatory procedure prescribed under Faceless Assessment Scheme. The assessment order was set aside and matter was remanded back to Assessing Officer. (AY. 2018-19)
Novelty Merchants (P) Ltd v. NFAC (2021) 283 Taxman 385 (Delhi) (HC)
Pooja Singla Builders and Engineers (P) Ltd v. NAFC (2021) 440 ITR 413/ 283 Taxman 491 (Delhi) (HC)
Religare Enterprises Ltd. v. NFAC (2021) 283 Taxman 408 (Delhi) (HC)
-
S.144B : Faceless Assessment-Violation of principle of natural justice-Without affording personal hearing-COVID-19-Order was set aside and remanded back for adjudication a fresh [S. 143(3), Art, 226]
Assessment order was passed without granting an opportunity of filing objections against notices-cum-draft assessment orders as State of Delhi was under lockdown due to second wave of Covid-19 Pandemic between date of notices and date by which replies had to be filed. On writ High Court set aside the matter and remanded back to Assessing Officer for taking appropriate steps in accordance with law. (AY. 2018-19)
Ramprastha Buildwell (P) Ltd v. NEAC (2021) 283 Taxman 235 (Delhi) (HC)
-
S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Violation of principle of natural justice-Opportunity of personal hearing was not granted-Order was set aside-Directed the Assessing Officer to pass a reasonable order in accordance with law [S. 143(3), 144B(7) Art, 226]
Assessing order was passed without granting opportunity of personal hearing. On writ the High Court held that there was no hearing had been granted to assessee before passing impugned assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B, there was a violation of principles of natural justice as well as mandatory procedure prescribed in Faceless Assessment Scheme, assessment order as well as demand notice and all proceedings initiated pursuant thereto were to be set aside and matter was to be remanded back to Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh. (AY. 2018-19)
Umkal Healthcare (P) Ltd. v. NFAC (2021) 283 Taxman 504 (Delhi) (HC)
-
S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Cash credits-Violation of principle of natural justice-Two days time was not granted-Draft assessment order was not provided-Assessment order was set aside [Art, 226]
The assessment order was passed making addition of Rs 29, 51, 28, 460 under section 68 of the Act, without giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing also not providing the draft assessment order. The assessee filed the writ petition. High Court set a side the order of the Assessing Officer for violation of natural justice and not providing draft assessment order. (AY. 2018-19)
Setu Securities (P) Ltd v. NFAC (2021) 323 CTR 646 / 207 DTR 425 (Bom) (HC)
-
S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Power of enhancement-Any matter relating to assessment-Writ was dismissed. [S.92C, 144C(8), Art, 226]
Dismissing the petition the Court held that DRP being a specialised Panel is provided with power to propose variations relating to any matter arising out of assessment proceedings and Explanation to sub-section (8) of section 144C stipulates that enhancement is to be made with reference to matter arising out of assessment proceedings relating to draft assessment order. Court also held that there is no impediment as such for DRP to consider any matter arising out of assessment proceedings relating to draft assessment order and no matter, such an issue was discussed in draft assessment order or not, but it should not be totally unconnected with assessment proceedings or draft assessment order. (AY. 2013-14) (SJ)
Delphi-TVS Diesel Systems Ltd. v. ITO (2021) 323 CTR 508 /207 DTR 329 (Mad) (HC)
-
S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Principle of natural justice-Cash credits-Order was set aside. [S. 68, 143(3), Art. 226]
The assessment order was passed making addition of cash credits of more than 40 Crores. On writ the assessee contended that no reasonable opportunity of hearing was given. Allowing the petition the Court observed that before going into the merits of the issue whether the income of the assessee was taxable under section 68 or not, though the assessee had not sought a personal hearing, it became incumbent on his part to seek a personal hearing to explain with the documents already submitted to the Department to establish the genuineness of the transaction under which the assessee had accepted the sum from the lender through the bank. The order was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the assessing authority with directions to give one day personal hearing to the assessee. (AY.2018-19)
Nagalinga Nadar M. M. v. Add. CIT (2021) 439 ITR 147 / 207 DTR 241 / (2022) 284 Taxman 244 / 324 CTR 195 (Mad.)(HC)
-
S. 144B: Faceless Assessment –Assessment order without complying with the procedure- Assessing Officer was directed to pass a fresh order, after complying with requirement of section 144B.[S. 143 (3), Art , 226]
Where the assessment order was passed without first issuing a show cause notice on the assessee as provided for in section 144B, such an assessment order was bad in law and was to be set aside. However, opportunity was to be given to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order after complying with the requirements of section 144B. (AY. 2017-18)
Sribasta Kumar Swain v .UOI [2022] 440 ITR 545 (Orissa) (HC)
-
S. 144B : Faceless Assessment – Contention of denial of opportunity of personal hearing requested by Assessee — Assessment order stayed.[Art , 226]
On a writ petition contending that the assessment made under section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be examined by the High Court without insisting upon filing of an appeal and no personal hearing was provided. The High Court directed issue notice of the writ petition and stay application and stayed the effect and operation of the assessment order in the meanwhile.
Inder Prasad Mathura Lal v. NEAC (2022) 440 ITR 73 (Raj) ( HC)
-
S. 147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Seeking clarification-Retention money-No failure to disclose material facts-Reassessment is bad in law [S. 148, Art, 226]
The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act. The notice for reassessment was issued after the expiry of four years for seeking clarifications. The assessee filed writ challenging the issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act. Single judge dismissed the writ petition. On appeal allowing the petition the Court held that there appears to be no power vested with the AO to seek such clarifications-Nevertheless, the assessee has furnished the reply and the reply specifically stated that the retention money has already been offered to tax in the subsequent period. There is no allegation against the assessee of any failure on his part to disclose full particulars at the time of original assessment, nor there is any fresh tangible material brought out by the AO on record justifying his exercise of power under section 147 read with section 148 of the Act. Notice was quashed. (AY. 2011-12)
Subrahmanyan Constructions Co. (P) Ltd v. A CIT (2021) 207 DTR 289 (Mad) (HC)
-
S. 147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Interest expenses-No failure to disclose material facts-Reassessment notice was quashed [S. 57, 148, Art, 226]
The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act. The Reassessment notice was issued on the ground that the interest paid to HDFC bank was not allowable as deduction u/s 57 of the Act. The assessee filed the writ petition to quash the reassessment notice, allowing the petition the Court held that there is no failure on the part of the assessee to truly and fully disclose all primary facts necessary for the purpose of assessment. Accordingly the reassessment notice was quashed. Followed Calcutta Discount Co Ltd v. ITO (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC), Ananta Land Mark Pvt. Ltd v. Dy.CIT (2021) 439 ITR 168 (Bom) (HC). (AY. 2012-13)
Kalpataru Plus Shrayans v. Dy. CIT (2021) 207 DTR 138 /323 CTR 747 (Bom) (HC)
-
S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Objections to notice-Order disposing the objections must be passed by passing speaking order-Order disposing the objection was set aside. [S. 148, Art. 226]
The assessee challenged the issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act and order disposing the objection. Allowing the petition the Court held that the Assessing Officer had to pass a speaking order taking into consideration the objections raised by the assessee. The cryptic manner of dealing without any semblance of reasons necessitated a remand. (AY.2013-14)
Shilp Realty Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2021) 439 ITR 478 (Guj.)(HC)
-
S. 147 : Reassessment-Arithmetical mistake-Issue subject matter of appeal before CIT(A)-Reassessment invalid-Electricity duty short provision of interest on Government loan-Deletion of addition is held to be justified. [S. 43B, 148]
Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that the reassessment proceedings had been initiated contrary to the second proviso to section 147(1). What was pending before the Commissioner (Appeals) was the very same subject matter for which notice under section 148 was issued. Court also held that the Tribunal was right in confirming the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and quashing the order thereby deleting the additions made on account of electricity duty and short provision of interest on Government loan, made under section 43B, relying on the court’s decision in the assessee’s own case for earlier assessment years. Followed Kerala State Electricity Board v. Dy CIT (2010) 329 ITR 91 (Ker.)(HC) (AY. 2005-06)
PCIT v. Kerala State Electricity Board (2021)439 ITR 323 (Ker.) (HC)
-
S. 147: Reassessment – After the expiry of four years –Shipping Reserve — Amendment in law with effect from 1.4.1996 restricting deduction to 50% of income derived from operation of ships — Amendment not applicable in respect of earlier AY — Failure to furnish reasons recorded as requested by assessee — No failure on part of assessee to disclose all material facts fully and truly – Reassessment was quashed. [S. 33AC , 148, Art , 226 ]
For the AY 1994-95, the assessee’s income was revised at nil after allowing deduction under section 33AC. After a period of four years, the assessee received a notice under section 148 to reopen the assessment under section 147. On a writ petition:
Held, allowing the petition, that the Finance Act, 1995 amended the provisions of section 33AC with effect from April 1, 1996 and restricted the deduction to be allowed at 50% of the profits derived from the business of operation of ships (computed under the head “profits and gains of business or profession” before making a deduction under the section). The deduction under section 33AC as it stood in the AY 1994-95 was to be allowed on the basis of the total income. The period of limitation of four years had expired and the reasons for reopening of the assessment did not disclose any finding that the assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. The reasons for re-opening showed that the conclusion had been drawn from the case record of the assessee itself. The entire reasons proceeded on the basis of “perusal of details” and on “perusal of records” and stated that the assessee had wrongly claimed certain deductions which had been accepted by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the fact that the assessee had been allowed a deduction under section 33AC in respect of income from dividends, long-term capital gains and interest was no ground for issuing notice under section 148 to initiate reassessment proceedings. (AY. 1994-95)
Great Eastern Shipping Company Limited v. K. C. Naredi, Addl. CIT (2022) 440 ITR 59 (Bom) ( HC )
-
S. 147: Reassessment – After the expiry of four years – Condition Precedent — Notice not specifying failure to disclose any material facts truly and fully by assessee — Notice and subsequent order invalid [S. 148, Art. 226]
For the AY 1998-99, the assessee filed a second revised return declaring a loss as a result of demerger of its bottling division. The AO issued notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) along with a questionnaire. The assessee furnished the reasons for filing the revised returns of income and provided clarifications in response to the various queries raised and the balance sheet and the profit and loss account. Thereafter, the AO passed an order under section 143(3) computing the total income of the assessee at Nil after making certain disallowances and after setting off earlier years’ losses. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).
The Commissioner by an order under section 263 directed the AO to pass a fresh assessment order after considering the issues identified in his order. Thereafter, an order under section 143(3) read with section 263 was passed.
After the expiry of four years the AO issued a notice under section 148 to reopen the assessment under section 147. On a writ petition:
Held, allowing the petition, that the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment did not state that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment of the AY 1998-99. The notice issued under section 148 after a period of four years for reopening the assessment under section 147 and the consequential order passed were quashed and set aside. (AY. 1998-99)
Coca-Cola India P. Ltd. v. DCIT (2022) 440 ITR 20 (Bom) ( HC)
-
S. 147: Reassessment – Two assessment years reopened – One with in four years – One after the expiry of four years – Condition Precedent — Primary facts necessary for assessment fully and truly disclosed — AO had applied his mind – Not open for the AO to reopen assessment based on very same material and to take a different view – Notices for reopening on change of opinion – Invalid [S. 148, Art , 226 ]
The assessee sold beauty care products and provided consultancy services. It declared income from sale of products and income from provision of services. The AO issued a notice under section 142(1) and the assessee furnished the details of advertisement expenses as sought for. Thereafter, an order under section 143(3) was passed accepting the return of income. After a period of four years, a notice under section 148 was issued to reopen the assessment under section 147 for the AY 2012-13 and within period of four years for AY 2013-14, on the ground that the advertisement and marketing expenditure incurred by the assessee was not deductible under section 37 since the assessee was prohibited from advertising under the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 , read with Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002. The objections raised by the assessee were rejected. On writ petitions :
Held, allowing the petitions, that in the original assessment the AO was aware of the issue of expenses incurred on advertisement and marketing by the assessee. Once he had applied his mind in the regular assessment proceedings of the assessee having incurred advertisement and marketing expenditure, it was not open for him to reopen the assessment under section 147. In the original assessment the assessee was called upon to differentiate between the nature of expenses shown under the head depreciation and amortization vis-a-vis advertisement and marketing expenses shown in the profit and loss account. The requisite details, including a copy of agreement, actual advertising invoices, were filed and the issue was discussed with the Assessing Officer at length before he passed the order under section 143(3). The notices under section 148 for reopening the assessment under section 147 were issued merely on change of opinion and therefore, set aside. Followed Aroni Commercial Ltd v. Dy CIT (2014) 362 ITR 403 (Bom) (HC), Marico Ltd v. ACIT (2019) 111 taxmann.com 53 ( Bom) (HC) (AY. 2012-13, 2013-14)
Rich Feel Health and Beauty Private Limited v. ITO (2022) 440 ITR 41/ 284 Taxman 286 (Bom) ( HC)
-
S. 147 : Reassessment – Reason to believe – Sanction for issue of notice – Recording of separate reasons not necessary – Reassessment notice is held to be valid. [S. 148 , 151 Art , 226]
The sanctioning authority is not required to separately record his reasons for granting a sanction if he approves the reasons recorded by the AO. In such a case, it cannot be said that the sanction has been granted in a mechanical manner and, therefore, the proceedings are bad in law. Further, since in this case, no questions were asked on the issue in which reassessment was sought to be done, it would not constitute a case of change of opinion. (AY. 2014-15)
Premlata Soni ( Smt.) v. NEAC (2022) 440 ITR 578 (MP) (HC)
-
S. 147 : Reassessment – With in four years- Where the necessary details were disclosed, reopening is not valid. [S. 54, 148, Art. 226]
The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings on the ground that the assessee had failed to file several details pertaining to its claim of deduction under section 54 of the Act such as proof of cost of improvement etc. Held that the assessee’s computation of capital gains after considering the deduction claimed under section 54 of the Act was on record. Further, the details regarding the cost were also filed. Therefore, the Assessing Officer proceeded on a wrong presumption that the details were not on record. Accordingly, he could not have recorded a reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and the proceedings were to be quashed. (AY. 2012-13)
Bankim Bhagwanji Chaauhan v. ITO (2022) 440 ITR 485 (Guj) ( HC)
-
S. 147 : Reassessment –With in four years- Where the necessary details were disclosed, reopening is not valid. [S. 148, Art. 226]
The Assessing Officer sought to reopen an assessment on the ground that due to delay in submission of TP study, the arm’s length price of the transaction could not be examined. Quashing the proceedings, the High Court held that Form 3CEB as well as the TP study were filed in time and that it was apparent from the record that the Assessing Officer had decided to neither refer the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer nor did he himself examine the transactions. Having done so, he could not change his opinion and reopen a concluded assessment. (AY .2013-14)
JRS Pharma and Gujarat Microwax Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2022) 440 ITR 557 (Guj) ( HC)
-
S. 153A : Assessment-Search or requisition-Warrant of Authorisation-Effect of amendment of Section 132(1) by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009-Amendment has retrospective effect from June 1, 1994 and is clarificatory-Additional Director of Income-Tax had Authority to issue warrant of authorisation-Without incriminating material proceedings u/s 153A is not valid. [S. 132]
Court held that Section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was amended by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 authorizing the Additional Director or the Additional Commissioner or the Joint Director or the Joint Commissioner to issue a search warrant. This provision was given retrospective effect from June 1, 1994. In terms of the clarification issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes the amendment is clarificatory. Warrant of Authorisation issued by the Additional Director of Income-tax was held to be valid. Court also held that there being absolutely no incriminating materials found or seized at the time of search, there was no justification for the initiation of assessment proceedings under section 153A. The assessment proceedings were not valid. (AY.2002-03 to 2008-09)
Smrutisudha Nayak (Smt.) v. UOI (2021) 439 ITR 193 / 208 DTR 1 / 323 CTR 617 (Orissa)(HC)
-
S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Loss return-One day delay in filling of return-Mistake must be obvious-Assessment order passed without considering the delay in filing of return-Mistake which could be rectified-Liberty given to the assessee to file an application before CBDT. [S. 80, 119(2)(b), 139(3)]
Dismissing the appeal the Court held that the return claiming loss had been submitted with a delay of just one day and even that was caused by a bona fide error. The mistake could be rectified. Court gave liberty to the assessee to file an application under section 119(2)(b) of the Act before the competent authority seeking condonation of delay in filing returns and thereafter carry forward of loss to the subsequent assessment year which were incurred during the assessment year 2004-05.(AY.2006-07)
Kolar and Chickballapur District Co-Op. Bank Ltd. v. A CIT (2021) 439 ITR 678 (Karn.)(HC)
-
S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Expenditure on account of stores and spares-Omission to make addition in the assessment order-Income assessed as income from other sources and not as business income-Rectification is held to be valid. [S. 28(1), 37(1), 56]
Affirming the order of the Tribunal the Court held that the assessee had not been carrying on any manufacturing activity for the assessment year 2004-05, and the rental income received by the assessee for that year could not be treated as business income. In view of the finding, the disallowance of the expenditure on stores and spares by the Assessing Officer was correct. The omission of the Assessing Officer to make the addition while computing the total income was liable to be rectified. The order of rectification was valid. (AY.2004-05)
PTL Enterprises Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2021) 439 ITR 365 (Ker.)(HC)
-
S. 226 : Collection and recovery-Modes of recovery-Stay of recovery-Pendency of appeal before CIT(A)-Alternative remedy-Directed to approach the Assessing Officer for stay-Writ is not maintainable. [S. 220(6), 246, 246A, Art. 226]
The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) which was pending for final disposal. For stay of recovery the assesee filed writ before the High Court. Dismissing the petition the Court held that the assessee could approach the Assessing Officer under section 220(6) of the Act. Merely because of some apprehensions in the minds of the assessee, it cannot be stated that the Assessing Officer would not decide the issue in the proper perspective. The Assessee directed to file application under section 220(6) of the Act. (AY.2018-19)
Aiman Education and Welfare Society v. NFAC (2021) 439 ITR 651 (Mad.)(HC)
-
S. 226 : Collection and recovery-Garnishee proceedings-Criminal proceedings against assessee with reference to particular amount-Money in excess in Bank can be adjusted towards tax dues of assessee. [S. 226(4), Code of Criminal Procedure code, 1973, S. 451, 457, Indian Penal Code 1860, S 120B, 420, Art. 226]
The petition was filed before the Court to transfer money in excess in Bank which can be adjusted towards tax due of the assessee. Court held that according to the status report filed by the Bureau, the amounts transferred by the Russian company to the assessee in the London account, in relation to the transaction totalled to a sum of USD 2,15,71,843.90. However, the amount which was frozen and received in India was beyond the amount in relation to transaction with the Russian company. The amount received in excess of the amount received from the Russian company by the assessee qua the transaction could not be prima facie termed as case property or the proceeds of the crime liable to be confiscated or for compensation in case the assessee were charged and convicted. Consequently the Special Judge was to retain the amount received in lieu of the frozen amount of USD 2,15,71,843.90 along with the interest accrued thereon from the date of receipt till date and transfer the balance amount along with the interest accrued thereon received in the account to the Income-tax Department.
Ravina and Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2021) 439 ITR 667 / 208 DTR 25 / 323 CTR 908 (Delhi)(HC)
-
S. 192 : Deduction at source-Salary-Credit for tax deducted-Collection and recovery of tax-Bar against direct demand on assessee-Failure to deposit the tax in Government treasury by the employer-Credit cannot be denied to the employee-Directed to give credit [S.199, 201, 205, Art, 226]
Assessee was an employee of Kingfisher Airlines. Airlines deducted TDS on salary made to assessee but did not deposit same in Government treasury.The credit was not given by revenue and demand has been raised with interest. On writ the Court held that TDS having been deducted by employer of assessee, it will always been open for department to recover same from said employer and credit of same could not have been denied to assessee. Court also held that if tax had been recovered the assessee is entitle to refund with the interest.Followed Devarsh Pravinbhai Patel v. ACIT (SCA Nos. 12965 /12966 of 2018 dt. 24-9 2028, ACIT v. Om Prakash Gattani (2000) 242 ITR 638 (Delhi)(HC) (AY. 2009-10, 2011-12)
Kartik Vijaysingh Sonavane v. Dy. CIT (2021) 208 DTR 441 / 324 CTR 111/ 132 taxmann.com 293 / (2022)) 440 ITR 11/ 284 Taxman 278 (Guj.) (HC)
-
S. 194H : Deduction at source-Commission or brokerage-Sale of prepaid SIM cards to distributors-Discounts given by assessee-telecommunication company on sale of prepaid SIM cards to distributors-Not liable to deduct tax at source
Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that that no TDS provisions under section 194H were attracted on discounts given by assessee-telecommunication company on sale of prepaid SIM cards to distributors.
CIT(TDS) v. Vodafone Cellular Ltd. (2021)131 taxmann.com 191 (Bom) (HC)
Editorial : Notice is issued in SLP filed by the revenue, CIT(TDS) v. Vodafone Cellular Ltd. (2021) 283 Taxman 292 (SC)
-
S. 201 : Deduction at source-Survey-Failure deduct tax at source-Payment to non-residents-Appeal pending before two earlier assessment years-Writ was dismissed-Directed to pursue alternative remedy of appeal. [S. 133A, 201 (1), 201(IA) Art, 226)
Dismissing the petition the Court held that the assessee has already availed of its remedies of appeal in relation to two assessment years hence the writ was dismissed and directed to avail the appeal proceedings in accordance with law.
BT (India) (P) Ltd v. ITO 323 CTR 661/ 207 DTR 377 (Delhi) (HC)
-
S. 234B : Interest-Advance tax-Tax deducted at source-Non-resident-Payer deducted tax at source-Levy of interest is held to be not justified.
Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court payer, who was required to make payments to assessee-non-resident, had deducted tax at source, question of payment of advance tax by assessee (payee) would not arise and, therefore, it would not be permissible for revenue to levy interest under section 234B upon assessee. Followed DIT (IT) v. Texas Instruments Incorporated (2020) 275 Taxman 614 (Ker)(HC) AY. 2011-12)
CIT v. IBM Singapore (P) Ltd. (2021) 131 taxmann.com 189 (Karn) (HC)
Editorial : Notice issued in SLP filed by the revenue against High Court order, CIT v. IBM Singapore (P) Ltd. (2021) 283 Taxman 288 (SC)
-
S. 234E : Fee – Default in furnishing the statements – Provision for levy of late fee for delay in filing — Valid — Intimation calling for payment of late fee for delaying filing of return — Not sustainable for periods prior to June 1, 2015 [S. 200A, Art, 226]
During FY 2012-13 and 2013-14, TDS was timely deducted and deposited by Petitioner companies, however, there was delay in filing quarterly returns. Revenue processed belated quarterly returns under section 200A and issued intimation that Petitioner was under statutory obligation under section 234E to pay late fee for delayed filing of TDS return. On writ petitions against the said intimations, a single judge declared the intimations illegal. On appeal before the Division Bench:
Since provisions of section 200A were amended to enable computation of fee payable under section 234E at time of processing of return and said amendment came into effect from 1-6-2015 (in view of CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2015 dtd. 17-11-2015), intimations issued under section 200A dealing with fee for belated filing of TDS returns for period prior to 1-6-2015 were invalid and were to be set aside.
Olari Little Flower Kuries (P.) Ltd. v. UOI (2022) 440 ITR 26 (Ker) (HC)
-
S. 234E : Fee – Default in furnishing the statements – Provision for levy of late fee for delay in filing — Valid — Intimation calling for payment of late fee for delaying filing of return — Not sustainable for periods prior to June 1, 2015 [S. 200A, Art, 226]
During FY 2012-13 and 2013-14, TDS was timely deducted and deposited by Petitioner companies, however, there was delay in filing quarterly returns. Revenue processed belated quarterly returns under section 200A and issued intimation that Petitioner was under statutory obligation under section 234E to pay late fee for delayed filing of TDS return. On writ petitions against the said intimations, a single judge declared the intimations illegal. On appeal before the Division Bench:
Since provisions of section 200A were amended to enable computation of fee payable under section 234E at time of processing of return and said amendment came into effect from 1-6-2015 (in view of CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2015 dtd. 17-11-2015), intimations issued under section 200A dealing with fee for belated filing of TDS returns for period prior to 1-6-2015 were invalid and were to be set aside.
Olari Little Flower Kuries (P.) Ltd. v. UOI (2022) 440 ITR 26 (Ker) (HC)
-
S. 244A : Refund-Interest on refunds-Interest granted earlier-Directed not to charge the interest. [S. 220(2)]
Held that the interest under section 244A of the Act was paid by the Department for the delay caused in giving refund due to the assessee. Interest on the interest paid under section 244A of the Act not being provided under the statute, the Tribunal rightly held that the Assessing Officer shall recompute the interest chargeable under section 220(2) of the Act by reducing only the principal amount of tax from the refund granted earlier and not charge interest on the interest granted earlier under section 244A. (AY.1997-98)
CIT v. ABB Ltd. (2021) 439 ITR 554 (Karn.)(HC)
-
S. 245D : Settlement Commission-No procedural error committed by Settlement Commission-Order of single judge allowing the writ petition of the revenue was set aside-Order of settlement commission was affirmed. [S. 245D(4), Art. 226]
Single judge allowed the writ petition of the revenue. On appeal allowing the appeal the Court held that the findings rendered by the Settlement Commission was not a concession extended by the Commissioner (Departmental representative), but in fact, accepting the verification report which was submitted. Therefore, the Department, on a wrong premise that the Settlement Commission had recorded that a concession was given, had filed a writ petition which was unnecessary, as the Commission had not recorded any concession, but taken up the matter, considered the case of the assessee as well as the Department, and settled the case based upon the increased offer made by the assessee. On a cumulative reading of the order, it was clear that one of the disputes which was subject matter of the settlement proceedings was unaccounted excess stock. On account of the stand taken by the Department as well as the assessee the Commission had directed verification of the data from the impounded computer server. There was no procedural error committed by the Settlement Commission, warranting interference by the court. The order of the Settlement Commission was not to be construed as a concession given by the Commissioner (Departmental representative), but a finding rendered by the Commission with regard to the verification of the data from the impounded computer server. Therefore, when there was no procedural irregularity the order of the Settlement Commission, which had attained finality and given effect, it need not be interfered with. The order allowing the writ petition filed by the Department was set aside.
G. Rajam Chetty and Sons v. CIT (2021) 439 ITR 687 (Mad.)(HC)
Editorial : Decision of single judge in CIT v. ITSC (2021) 439 ITR 684 (Mad)(HC) set aside.
-
S. 246A : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Writ against assessment order – Non-interference of court in view of the availability of the alternate remedy.[S. 143(3), 248, Art, 226]
Where the assessee challenged an assessment order by way of a writ petition, the assessee was to be relegated to the alternate remedy of appeal since the exceptions to the alternate remedy, i.e., (i) a breach of fundamental rights; (ii) a violation of the principles of natural justice; (iii) an excess of jurisdiction; or (iv) a challenge to the vires of the statute or delegated legislation were not present. Writ petition was dismissed. (AY. 2014 -15 )
Sree Krumariamman Granites v. ACIT (2022) 440 ITR 537/ 209 DTR 283/ 324 CTR 418 (Mad) (HC)
-
S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Remand of case-Power to be used only in exceptional cases-Order of remand was set aside.
Allowing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that on the facts of the case, the Tribunal was not right in setting aside the well reasoned order passed by the Assessing Officer for re-examination, especially when the Assessing Officer had duly examined all the material placed while passing the assessment order which was affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Order of Commissioner (Appeals) is restored. (AY.2015-16)
PCIT v. Prabha Jain (2021) 439 ITR 304 (Mad.)(HC)
-
S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Additional grounds-Order can be rectified on account of mistake of the counsel for the parties. [S. 253, Art. 226]
At the time of hearing the counsel for the assessee inadvertently, failed to bring to the notice of the Tribunal that issue raised inn ground no Nos. 6 and 7 of the grounds of appeal. The assessee filed the miscellaneous application which was rejected on the ground that there was no mistake in the order of the Tribunal. On writ allowing the petition the Court held that, the amendment to the order of the Tribunal under section 254(2) could also be made, if it was triggered on account of a mistake of the counsel for the parties. This power would also extend to a situation where the assessee’s counsel withdrew the appeal, for the reason that, the issue concerning the transfer pricing adjustment in respect of the assessment year 2011-12 stood resolved. The order passed by the Tribunal in the miscellaneous application was to be set aside. The Tribunal was directed to adjudicate the issues pertaining to the additional grounds raised by the assessee. Relied on CIT (Asst) v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd (2003) 305 ITR 227 (SC), S.Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka (1993 Suppl. 4SCC 595 (AY.2011-12)
Federal Mogul Goetze (India) Ltd. v. ACIT (2021) 439 ITR 204 (Delhi)(HC)
-
S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-lease rent-Tribunal followed order of earlier year and not followed the Judgement of Supreme Court-Miscellaneous application was dismissed-Order rejecting miscellaneous application was set aside-Non-consideration of judgement of Supreme Court is a mistake apparent on record-Matter remanded to Tribunal to decide on merits in accordance with law [S. 37 (1)), 200A]
The assessee claimed deduction of lease rental paid on cars taken on financial lease as revenue expenditure. The AO disallowed the expenditure. CIT (A) allowed the appeal. On appeal by the revenue the assessee relied on the decision of Supreme Court in I.C.D.S Ltd v. CIT (2013) 350 ITR 527 (SC). The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the revenue following the earlier order of the Tribunal in assesse’s own case for the Assessment year 2013-14. The assessee filed miscellaneous application and relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in CIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd (2008) 305 DTR 227 (SC) for the proposition that non-consideration of a decision of the Jurisdictional High Court or the Honourable Supreme Court is a mistake apparent from records. Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous application. On appeal High Court held that The Tribunal can take a stand that the issue is debatable and for doing so the Tribunal should record the reasons as to what are the other decisions on the very same point which may not support the case of the assessee. Accordingly the order rejecting the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee was held to be not justified. Order of Tribunal was set aside and Directed the Tribunal to decide on merit in accordance with law. (AY. 2004-05)
Philips India Ltd v. PCIT (2021) 323 CTR 992 / 208 DTR 211 (Cal) (HC))
-
S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record – Delay of 1924 days (Eight years) – Condonation of delay was dismissed. [S. 260A]
Where there was a delay of around eight years in filing a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal and the reason for the delay was mentioned to be the reason that the concerned officers of the assessee and its tax consultants had retired/changed, the Tribunal was right in concluding that the same was not a sufficient reason to entertain the appeal and condone the delay. Accordingly, dismissal of the miscellaneous application by the Tribunal was correct and does not call for interference. (AY. 2007-08)
South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. PCIT (2022) 440 ITR 568 (Chhattisgarh) (HC)
-
S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Central Board of Direct Taxes Circulars-Question was not argued before Tribunal-Appeal is not maintainable. [S. 80IC, 268A]
Dismissing the appeal the Court held that once the Department had not raised the plea of applicability of clause 10(c) of the Board’s Circular No. 3 of 2018, dated July 11, 2018 it could not be allowed to raise such plea in the appeal before the court. No such ground was raised by the Department before the Tribunal requiring it to decide the matter on the merits in view of clause 10(c) of Circular No. 3 of 2018, July 11, 2018. The Tribunal had correctly held that the appeal was not maintainable in view of the mandate of Circular No. 17 of 2019, dated August 8, 2019. No question of law arose. (AY. 2012-13)
PCIT v. Surya Textech (2021) 439 ITR 215 (HP)(HC)
-
S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Territorial jurisdiction of High Court-Transfer of case-Pendency of proceedings-Ahmadabad Tribunal decided the appeal-Appeal was filed at Allahabad High Court-Jurisdiction vest with Gujarat High court-Appeal was dismissed. [S. 120, 127(2)]
The case of the assessee was transferred from Ahmadabad to Noida by order dated 29 th December 2020. The appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 was decided by the Appellate Tribunal on 12 th November, 2020 Assessment order was passed on 28th Dec. 2017 CIT (A) decided the appeal on 31st Jan., 2019. Appellate Tribunal decided the appeal on by the Tribunal on 12th Nov., 2020. On the dt. 29th Dec, 2020, the assessment case of the assessee for asst. yr. 2012 13 was not pending Even if one were to apply the principle of appeal being continuation of the assessment, the fact that the Revenue has chosen to file the instant appeal in June, 2021, it cannot be relied to contend that proceeding was pending on 29th Dec, 2020. Therefore jurisdiction to hear the appeal would continue to vest with the Gujarat High Court and not before the Allahabad High Court. The appeal has been wrongly instituted before Allahabad High Court. Accordingly the appeal was dismissed (AY. 2012-13)
PCIT v. Dileep Kumar (2021) 323 CTR 998 / 208 DTR 110 (All)(HC)
-
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Order passed without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee was held to be not valid-Revision order which was affirmed by the Tribunal was set aside-directed the Commissioner to pass the order in conformity with the provisions of the Act. [S. 254(1)]
Allowing the appeal of the assessee the Court held that the Commissioner is duty bound to give an opportunity of being heard, while exercising the revisionary jurisdiction, to the assessee while enhancing or modifying the assessment or cancelling the assessment or directing for fresh assessment in conformity with the provisions contained under section 263. Accordingly the order passed by the Commissioner, without giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee which was affirmed by the Tribunal was set aside. Directed the Commissioner to pass the order in conformity with the provisions of the Act in conformity with the provisions of the Act. (AY.2014-15)
Ashoka Ispat Udyog v. PCIT (2021) 439 ITR 391 (Orissa)(HC)
-
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Violation of principles of Natural justice-Matter remanded to PCIT [S. 143(3), Art. 226]
Allowing the petition the Court held that when the law specifically requires the giving of an opportunity of being heard, that must be followed lest such failure render the order legally fragile on the anvil of breach of principles of natural justice. The procedure followed by the Principal Commissioner in passing the order without giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee was in violation of section 263 and in breach of principles of natural justice. The order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Principal Commissioner.
Narayanachetty Roja v. PCIT (2021) 439 ITR 104 / 323 CTR 861 (AP)(HC)
-
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Amortisation of preliminary expenses-Granted in initial year of expenditure-Deduction cannot be withdrawn in subsequent year. [S. 35D]
Allowing the appeal the Court held that Amortisation of preliminary expenses granted in initial year of expenditure cannot be withdrawn in subsequent year without disturbing the decision in the initial year. Followed, Dy. CIT v. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers co. ltd (2013) 356 ITR 460 (Guj.)(HC). (AY.2008-09)
Subex Ltd. v. CIT (2021) 439 ITR 495 (Karn.)(HC)
-
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limitation-Reassessment-Issue which was not subject matter of reassessment limitation has to be computed from the original assessment-Revision was held to be barred by limitation [143(3), 147, 263 (2)]
The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 28 th December 2006. The reassessment was completed on 30 the December 2011. The revision order was passed on 26 th March 2014. The Tribunal held that the issue which was not subject matter of reassessment while computing the limitation the issue which was was not subject matter of reassessment limitation has to be computed from the original assessment-Revision was held to be barred by limitation. Relied on CIT v. Alagendran Finance Ltd (2007)) 293 ITR 1(SC), Asoka Buildcon Ltd v. ACIT (2010) 325 ITR 574 (Bom) (HC), CIT v. ICICI Bank Ltd (2012) 252 CTR 85 (Bom)(HC) (AY. 2004-05)
CIT v. Indian Overseas Bank (2021) 207 DTR 202 (Mad) (HC)
-
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Merger-Subject matter of appeal-Investments written off-Book profit-Issue was not subject matter of appeal-Revision was quashed [S.115JB]
Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that the revision was held to be bad in law though the issue of investments written off whether allowable deduction or not was not subject matter of appeal. Revision order was quashed. Followed ITA No. 18/2004 dt 16-1-2020 and ITA No. 142 / 2016 dt.22-1.2020 (AY. 2006-07)
CIT, LTU v. Vijaya Bank (2021) 131 taxmann.com 136 (Karn) (HC)
Editorial : SLP is granted to the revenue, CIT, LTU v. Vijaya Bank (2021) 283 Taxman 295 (SC)
-
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Dispute resolution panel-Draft assessment order-No notice of demand attached-Order cannot be revised-No loss to revenue [S.144C]
Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that the draft assessment order is only a proposed assessment order and there is no demand notice attached to draft assessment order and draft assessment order by itself cannot levy tax on assessee. Revision of draft assessment order is bad in law. (AY. 2010-11)
PCIT v. Apollo Tyres Ltd. (2021) 283 Taxman 388 (Ker.)(HC)
-
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Prima facie satisfaction was not arrived by the Commissioner-Interim order-Matter was adjourned to 26-8 2021. [Art, 226]
Writ petition was filed against the revision order Whether where there was no prima facie satisfaction recorded by Principal Commissioner on basis of materials available on record that order of Assessing Officer which was sought to be reviewed under section 263 was an erroneous order as Principal Commissioner was yet to arrive at his prima facie conclusion and wanted matter to be examined further in-depth, no action could have been taken against assessee pursuant to proceeding initiated under section 263. Interim order was passed. The matter was adjourned to 26-8-2021 (SJ)
CMJ Breweries (P) Ltd v. UOI (2021) 283 Taxman 226 (Gauhati) (HC)
-
S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Matter to be remanded to Commissioner where evidence was not considered by him.[ S.153A, 254(1), 260A]
Where the Commissioner revised an assessment and the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s contention that the Commissioner had not examined the submissions and evidence, the Tribunal should have either examined the matter itself or remanded the matter back to the Commissioner. Since the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s contentions without following either of the two options, the matter was to be remanded to the Commissioner to consider the issue afresh. ( AY. 2008 -09,to 2011-12, 2013 -14)
PCIT v. Shalimar Pellet Feeds Ltd. (2022) 440 ITR 530 (Cal) (HC)
-
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Non striking off of irrelevant portion-Order of Tribunal confirming the penalty notice was set aside [S. 274]
Allowing the appeal the Tribunal held that validity of the order of penalty must be determined on the basis of the initiation of penalty proceedings. Notice was issued in the printed format without non-striking off irrelevant portion. Defects being ex facie apparent in the notices issued, the ignition of proceedings being vitiated, the order of the Tribunal confirming the order of the authorities was set aside. (AY.2003-2004-05)
P.M. Abdulla v. ITO (2021) 323 CTR 1077 / 208 DTR 93 (Karn)(HC)
-
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – On money – Survey – Income voluntarily offered- Deletion of penalty is held to be justified [S. 131(IA), 133A]
Where pursuant to survey proceedings, the assessee had voluntarily offered certain income to tax, the same would not be liable to penalty. These facts are different from a case where income is offered in a revised return of income after the addition is discovered by the Assessing Officer. (AY. 2012-13)
PCIT v. Shreedhar Associates (2022) 440 ITR 547 (Guj) ( HC)
-
S. 279 : Offences and prosecutions-Sanction-Chief Commissioner-Failure to file return within stipulated time-Issue of summons was only for one year-Reasons Remanded to the Commissioner for fresh consideration. [S. 139(1), 279(2), Art. 226]
The commissioner proposed for launching prosecution for delay in filing of return. The assessee moved application for compounding which was rejected. On writ allowing the petition the court held that the reason stated by the assessee for failure in filing the return of income under section 139(1) in time by the assessee for the assessment year 2013-14 had not been considered in the proper perspective by analysing before rejecting the reasons.. The reason cited by the assessee, after giving him an opportunity, could once again be considered in the proper perspective and accordingly, a fresh order could be passed by the Chief Commissioner. The order was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Chief Commissioner for reconsideration. (AY.2013-14)
Mahalingam Chandrasekar v. CCIT (2021) 439 ITR 698 (Mad.)(HC)
-
S. 281B : Provisional attachment-Mere apprehension on the part of the respondents that huge tax demands are likely to be raised on completion of assessment is not sufficient-Attachment of fixed deposit was quashed. [S.153A, Art, 226]
The fixed deposits of petitioner was attached invoking section 281B of the income-tax Act. On the ground that huge tax demands are likely to be raised. The assessee challenged the order by filing writ petition. Allowing the petition the Court held that mere apprehension on the part of the respondents that huge tax demands are likely to be raised on completion of assessment is not sufficient for the purpose of passing a provisional order of attachment. Exercise of power for order of provisional attachment must necessarily be preceded by formation of an opinion by the authorities that it is necessary to do so for the purpose of protecting the interest of Revenue. Before the order of provisional attachment, the CIT must form an opinion on the basis of the tangible material available for attachment that the assessee is not likely to fulfill the demand payment of tax and it is therefore necessary to do so for the purpose of protecting the interest of the Revenue-Radha Krishan Industries vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors (2021) SCC Online SC 334 followed. Order passed by the respondent was quashed.
Indian Minerals & Granite Co. v. Dy. CIT (2021) 323 CTR 352 / 207 DTR 164(Karn) (HC)