Direct Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 5 To 11 May 2024

Supreme Court Interest-Free/Concessional Loans To Bank Employees Taxable As Perquisite : Supreme Court Upholds Rule 3(7)(I) Of Income Tax Rules Case Name- All India Bank Officers' Confederation Vs The Regional Manager, Central Bank Of India & Others Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 352 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 The New Delhi ITAT held that Section 44AB of the Income tax Act casts an obligation upon the assessee to get accounts audited before the specified date and furnish by that date the report of such audit. 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 ...

Direct Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 5 To 11 May 2024

Mariya Paliwala

Tags