Supreme Court

Interest-Free/Concessional Loans To Bank Employees Taxable As Perquisite : Supreme Court Upholds Rule 3(7)(I) Of Income Tax Rules

A Division bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta while deciding a Civil Appeal in the case of All India Bank Officers' Confederation Vs The Regional Manager, Central Bank Of India & Others has held that Rule 3(7)(i) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and provision of interest free/concessional loan benefits provided by banks to bank employees shall be taxable as a perquisite under Section 17 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Delhi High Court

Income Tax Dept. To Allow Personal Hearing Through National Faceless Assessment Centre On Assessee's Request: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Global Vectra Helicorp Limited Versus Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

The Delhi High Court has held that the income tax department should allow personal hearings through the national faceless assessment centre on the assessee's request.

No Proceedings Under PMLA Could Be Sustained After Acquittal Of Accused: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Directorate Of Enforcement Versus Akhilesh Singh

The Delhi High Court has held that no proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) could be sustained after the acquittal of the accused in the predicate offence.

Bombay High Court

Capital Gain Tax Not Payable On Transfer Of Shares By Way Of Gift: Bombay High Court

Case Title: M/s. Jai Trust Versus The Union of India

The Bombay High Court has held that capital gain tax is not payable on the transfer of shares by way of gift.

ITAT

Differences In Opinion of Approved Valuer Regarding Fixation Of Value Of Particular Property Can't Be Termed As Concealment: Chennai ITAT Deletes Penalty

Case Title: Sengoda Gounder HUF verses DCIT

The Chennai ITAT held that assessee's claim on the fair market value cannot be termed as concealment of income, if such claim was based on the valuation report of an approved valuer.

I-T Authority Fails To Consider Reason For Difference In Sale Consideration & Stamp Duty: Mumbai ITAT Deletes Penalty Levied U/s 270A For Under-Reporting Of Income

Case Title: Satyam Print House verses Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre

Noting that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) have taken into consideration the explanation offered by the Assessee during the assessment proceedings in relation to the difference in the sale consideration and the stamp duty valuation of immovable property, the Mumbai ITAT deleted the penalty levied u/s 270A of the Income tax Act for under-reporting of income.

Amount Deposited During Demonetization Does Not Call For Addition U/s 69A If Source Of Deposit Was Sufficiently Explained: Rajkot ITAT

Case Title: Satishbhai Kadvabhai Sarvaiya verses ITO

Finding that the assessee has explained the details of the earning of the amount which was rightly deposited during the demonetization period, the Rajkot ITAT held that the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) u/s 69A of the Income tax Act is not justified.

No Penalty U/s 271B Can Be Levied If There Is Reasonable Cause For Failure In Timely Furnishing Tax Audit Report: Delhi ITAT

Case Title: Sanjeev Kumar Goyal verses ITO

Donation By One Trust To Other Charitable Institution Out Of Accumulated Fund Is Hit By Explanation To Sec 11(2) R/w/s 11(3)(D) & Hence Taxable: Delhi ITAT

Case Title: Sanganeria Foundations For Health & Education verses CIT (Exemption)

While explaining Section 11(3) of the Income tax Act, the New Delhi ITAT held that any income referred to u/s 11(2) which is paid to any trust/ institution registered u/s 12AA or to any fund/ trust/ university/ educational institution/ hospital referred to u/s 10(23C)(v) shall be deemed to be the income of such person of the previous year in which it is so applied or ceases to be so accumulated or set apart or ceases to remain so invested or deposited or credited or paid, as the case may be, or of the previous year immediately following the expiry of the period aforesaid.

Taxpayer Has Duly Established Existence Of Subscriber Companies: Kolkata ITAT Deletes Addition Made Towards Share Premium U/s 68

Case Title: Sharda Ferro Works Pvt. Ltd. verses DCIT

Referring to the decision of Bombay High court in the case of PCIT v. Paradise Inland Shipping Pvt Ltd. [2017] 84 taxmann.com 58 (Pan), the Kolkata ITAT deleted the addition made towards share capital and share premium u/s. 68 of the Income tax Act.

Interest Not Leviable From Assessee For Short Payment Of Tax Due To Payer's Default In Deducting TDS Before FY 2012-2013: ITAT

Case Title: Computer Modelling Group Ltd. Versus ACIT

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that since the assessee was a non-resident, the entire tax was to be deducted at source on payment made by the payer to it, and there was no question of advance tax payment by the assessee; accordingly, no interest under Section 234B could be levied upon the assessee.

Grant U/s 80G Can't Be Rejected Merely On Procedural Lapse By Making Application U/s 80G(5)(Ii) Inadvertently Instead Of U/s 80G(5)(Iii): Ahmedabad ITAT

Case Title: Shree Bipin Biharidas Charitable Foundation verses CIT (Exemption)

Referring to the decision of the Calcutta Bench in ITA No. 994/Kol/2023, the Ahmedabad ITATreiterated that the assessee, who has been granted provisional registration, is eligible to apply for final registration irrespective of the fact that the assessee had already commenced its activity even prior to the date of grant of provisional approval.

Rectification Application U/s 154 Can't Be Termed As Time-Barred If Taxpayer Duly Responded To Notices Issued In Consequence To Intimation U/S 143(1): Ahmedabad ITAT

Case Title: Shree Jay Limbach Co. Op. Credit Society Ltd. verses ITO

Observing that the assessee was all along, from the beginning since it became aware of some intimation having been made u/s 143(1) of the Income tax Act, seeking rectification in the same, the Ahmedabad ITAT held that rejection of said rectification application as being time barred is not in conformity with law.