Recent Updates
- CBDT notifies books & other documents to be maintained u/s 10(23C)/12A. Notification No. 94/2022 dated 10-08-2022.
- CBDT amends Rule 17CB to replace ‘trust or institution’ with ‘specified person’ in relation to Method of valuation for the purposes of sub-section (2) of section 115TD.
- CBDT extends time-limit for furnishing of Form-67. Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) can be claimed at time of filing belated and updated ITR. Amendment in Rule 128. Notification G.S.R. 636(E) [NO. 100/2022/F.NO. 370142/35/2022-TPL], DATED 18-08-2022.
- CBDT notifies Form 29D to get refund of tax deducted u/s 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
- CBDT Notifies list of documents to be submitted by employee to claim exemption on sum received for COVID-19 treatment. Notification S.O. 3703(E) [NO. 90/2022/F.NO. 370142/31/2022-TPL (PART-2)], DATED 5-8-2022
Important Judicial Precedents
- No confiscation or prosecution in respect of Benami property transactions entered into prior to 25-10-2016.
The 2016 Amendments to Benami Act can’t be applied retroactively to property transactions entered into prior to 25-10-2016
The 2016 Amendments to Benami Act including in rem forfeiture u/s. 5, can’t be applied retroactively to property transactions prior to 25-10-2016.
- Section 3(2) of the unamended 1988 Act is declared as unconstitutional for being manifestly arbitrary. Accordingly, Section 3(2) of the 2016 Act is also unconstitutional as it is violative of Article 20(1) of the Constitution.
- In rem forfeiture provision under Section 5 of the unamended Act of 1988, prior to the 2016 Amendment Act, was unconstitutional for being manifestly arbitrary.
- The 2016 Amendment Act was not merely procedural, rather, prescribed substantive provisions. In rem forfeiture provision under Section 5 of the Benami Act, as amended in 2016, being punitive in nature, can only be applied prospectively and not retroactively. Concerned authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to the coming into force of the 2016 Act, viz., 25-10-2016. As a consequence of the above declaration, all such prosecutions or confiscation proceedings shall stand quashed.
[Union of India Vs. Ganpati Dealcom (P.) Ltd. [2022] (Supreme Court) 141 taxmann.com 389].
- Revised return filed by assessee under section 139(5) can only substitute its original return filed under section 139(1) and cannot transform it into a return under section 139(3), in order to avail benefit of carrying forward or set-off of any loss under Section 80. [PCIT V. Wipro Ltd. – Supreme Court 140 Taxmann.com 223].
- Where detailed reasons were recorded by revenue in satisfaction note with respect to investment which were made by assessee for brief period and were repaid in same year and that investment was alleged to be an accommodation entry, it could not be said that reasons recorded by revenue did not satisfy prerequisite conditions of section 132(1). [PDIT V. Laljibhai Kanjibhai Mandalia 140 Taxmann.com 282]
- Whether bonafide mistake committed by assessee inadvertently in not adding back loss on sale of fixed assets in computation of income, does not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars – YES: ITAT Ahmedabad
The details furnished by the assessee-company along with its return clearly show that the relevant particulars were duly and fully furnished by the assessee showing the details of loss as well as its nature and it was not a caseof furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee-company. Moreover, in the written submission filed during the course of assessment proceedings, a request was made on behalf of the assessee-company to add the amount in question on account of loss on sale of fixed assets. Keeping in view the submission made by the assessee in writing during the course of assessment proceedings itself as well as the further details already furnished by the assessee along with its return of income giving full and true details of the loss as well as its capital nature, there is merit in the contention of AR that the mistake in not adding back the loss on sale of fixed assets in computation of income was a bona fide mistake inadvertently committed by assessee. Thus, the penalty imposed by AO u/s 271(1)(c) and confirmed by CIT(A) stands deleted [M/s Deco Mica Ltd. Vs. JCIT (ITA No. 1243/Ahd/2019) ITAT Ahmedabad].
- Whether valuation of preference shares under discounted free cash flow method is one of recognized methods – YES : ITAT
Whether assessee has discharged initial onus placed upon it u/s 68 and AO has failed to disprove onus discharged by assessee -YES : ITAT
The AO has made detailed enquiries with MFPL, being the subscriber of the preference shares and it has duly replied to all the queries posed by the AO. Further, it has also furnished various evidences available with it. It was noticed that the AO did not disprove the submissions and evidences so furnished by MFPL. It is well established proposition of law that the initial onus to prove the cash credit is placed upon the assessee the assessee has to prove three main ingredients, the identity of the creditor, credit worthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the creditor. CIT(A) has given a specific finding that the assessee has discharged the initial onus placed upon the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. AO has failed to disprove the onus discharged by the assessee, in which case, the AO could not have made the addition u/s 68 of the Act. Accordingly, CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made u/s 68 of the Act. The provisions of Rule 11UA(1)(c) do not prescribe any specific method for valuing preference shares. The valuation of preference shares under Discounted Free cash flow method is one of the recognized methods and there is nothing in the provisions that the method should not be used. Hence CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act. Accordingly, confirm the order passed by CIT(A). In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.