Imp Judgements.

 

Bpip Infra Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. vs. ACIT and Ors (Rajasthan High Court)

S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Constitutional validity-The delegation authorized being only for the purpose of enlarging limitation under a valid law, such delegation could not be exercised to resurrect the provision of law that stood omitted from the statute book by virtue of its substitution made by the Finance Act, 2021, w.e.f. 01.04.2021-Reassessment notices issued under section 148 of the Act are quashed-It is left open to the assessing authority to initiate-re-assessment proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2021 after making due compliance as required under the law. [S. 147, 148A, 149, 151, 151A, 153, 292 Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, S. 3(1) of the Act 38 of 2020, Art. 226]

 

Kartik Sonavane Vs DCIT Circle-8 (Gauhati High Court)

Sub-Whether an employee is entitled to get credit for the TDS deducted on salary even when the employer has defaulted in the payment of the tds so deducted? The court however relying on Gauhati High Court’s earlier decision in the case of Omprakash Gattani and the provisions of Section 205 which clearly provides that an assessee shall not be called upon to pay himself to the extent to which tax has been deduced from that income , allowed the Writ and directed the department to allow the credit for the TDS and start recovery proceedings if any against the Kingfisher airlines.

 

Rashesh Manhar Bhansali v. ACIT (Mum.)(Trib.)

Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign income and Assets ) and imposition of tax Act, 2015. S. 2(11) : Undisclosed asset located outside India – Applicability of the Statute – Accounts not in existence at the Black Money Act, 2015 came into force – The new legislation operates for those accounts and assets too.[I.T. Act S. 139(1)]

 

ITO vs. Rajeev Suresh Ghai (ITAT Mumbai)

S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Non-resident-On money-Foreign Resident cannot be taxed under section 69 of the Act-DTAA India -UAE. [S. 132(4), Art. 22] Where the assessee is a non-resident Indian, the assessee had paid cash amounts, as ‘on money’ to certain Builders in India. This amount was treated as an “unexplained investment” under section 69 of the Act. It was held that as per Article 22 of DTAA between India and UAE, as the unexplained investments are not made out of incomes generated in India, they have to be taxed in the Resident jurisdiction.

 

Cargo Service Centre India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue- eligibility of loss being carried forward-Issue which is beyond the scope of rectification-Commissioner cannot revise under section 263 of the Act. [S. 154] The Tribunal held that the quantification of loss, which is well beyond the limited scope of “mistake apparent on record” under section 154 of the Act could not have been disturbed in the proceedings under section 154 of the Act, and what cannot be done under section 154 of the Act, cannot be done under section 263 read with section 154 of the Act either.

 

Board of Control for Cricket in India v. PCIT (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 12A : Registration-Trust or institution-Held declining registration on the ground of Indian Premier League (IPL) activities are in the nature of commercial activities is held to be not justified. [S. 2(15), S. 12AA] It was held that merely because a sports tournament is structured in such a manner so as to make it more popular, resulting in more paying sponsorships and greater mobilization of resources, the basic character of the activity of popularizing cricket is not lost.