Case: EMDEE DIGITRONICS PVT LTD vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, ITAT KOLKATA Listen to the case summary EMDEE DIGITRONICS PVT LTD vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, ITAT KOLKATA here Background: The assessee's return of income was passed on for reassessment u/s 143(2).After the assessment, the AO passed an order u/s 143(3) of the Income … Continue reading Can AO’s order be termed as erroneous and prejudicial u/s 263 if the assessee has stated transactions are not allowable for deduction but AO has allowed such deductions?
Addition made to the income of the assessee (without cross-examination) cannot be sustained
In the case of Shakuntala Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, search and seizure operations at the premise of a third party uncovered incriminating material related to the assessee. The AO and CIT(A) both rejected the assessee’s request to cross examine the relevant person.Tribunal holding: Addition made to the income of an assessee on the basis of … Continue reading Addition made to the income of the assessee (without cross-examination) cannot be sustained
Broadcast companies not liable to pay TDS on Channel Placement Fees
ASIANET NEWS NETWORK P.LTD MUMBAI vs ASST CIT CIR 16(1) MUMBAI The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has held in the case of Asianet News Network vs. ACIT that channel placement fee paid by the broadcast company would not be liable to be disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) as there is no obligation on … Continue reading Broadcast companies not liable to pay TDS on Channel Placement Fees
Revisional Jurisdiction cannot be exercised on issues which have not been covered in Reassessment
Gulab Badgujar (HUF) Thane vs Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) The Pune bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Gulab Badjugar vs. CIT has held that an issue which was not covered in the reassessment proceedings would not be available for readjudication under revisional jurisdiction. The Tribunal noted that once the re-assessment … Continue reading Revisional Jurisdiction cannot be exercised on issues which have not been covered in Reassessment
Riverus Strategic Income Tax Research Tool v2.0 is out!
We are excited to share with you that our Riverus Strategic Income Tax Research tool had not only got new looks but also is packed with robust functionalities. This tool will save your research time by offering answers to your queries in seconds. Check this quick video to get sneak peek. To get a demo … Continue reading Riverus Strategic Income Tax Research Tool v2.0 is out!
Judge Spotlight – Justice Sanjiv Khanna
Justice Sanjiv Khanna was one of the two judges elevated to the Supreme Court in the latest round of appointments, becoming an SC judge on 18-1-2019. Prior to this he was one of the most experienced tax judges at the Delhi HC. He is now the third most experienced tax judge (in terms of number of … Continue reading Judge Spotlight – Justice Sanjiv Khanna
ITAT Hyderabad comes down heavily on revenue officials for frivolous appeals
In the case of DCIT v. Shashikala Ramkumar the Hyderabad bench of the ITAT has come down heavily on the revenue officials for not applying their minds while preferring appeals. The Bench remarked that appeals are being filed on grounds that are not meritorious while invoking wrong provisions so as to raise unnecessary demands. Also Read: Unexplained cash … Continue reading ITAT Hyderabad comes down heavily on revenue officials for frivolous appeals
Penalty notice under section 274 must mention the grounds under which penalty is imposed
The Delhi bench of the ITAT has held in the case of Ravina Khurana vs. DCIT that imposing the penalty without mentioning the grounds specified in the notice issued under section 274 of the Income Tax Act is not justifiable and that the AO has to specifically mentioned under which limb of the Act the penalty proceedings … Continue reading Penalty notice under section 274 must mention the grounds under which penalty is imposed
Requirements of Section 263 must be satisfied for CIT to exercise revisionary jurisdiction
ITAT Kolkata has held in the case of Poonam Bhotika vs. ITO Ward 43(1) Kolkata that Commissioner of Income Tax ( CIT ) does not have power under section 263 to remit the matter to the AO without giving a finding that the order was erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Also Read: Penalty … Continue reading Requirements of Section 263 must be satisfied for CIT to exercise revisionary jurisdiction
Peripheral Development Expenditure as part of CSR to be considered revenue expenditure
The Kolkata bench of ITAT has held in the case of M/s. Misrilall Mines Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT CIRCLE 5(1) Kolkata, that peripheral development expenditure as part of CSR is to be considered as revenue expenditure. It also held that if such expenditure was incurred by the company wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the … Continue reading Peripheral Development Expenditure as part of CSR to be considered revenue expenditure