- Jayant Nanda VS. Union of India, [2024] 159 taxmann.com 674 (Delhi)
Where based on search at premises of assessee, NRI, it was alleged that assessee had indulged in evading disclosure of a large amount of undisclosed foreign assets/income in offshore jurisdictions and LOC was issued against assessee, since assessee had not been called for investigation by authorities for two years, and in absence of any material which indicated that assessee was likely to be called for investigation in near future, Look Out Circular (LOC) opened against assessee was to be quashed.
- Varun Sood VS. ACIT, [2024] 159 taxmann.com 606 (Delhi)
Merely because a person holds an office in a corporate entity, it would not be sufficient to place that individual in clause (b) of section 2(35); he must be connected with management and administration of company
- Smt. Bhavnaben K. Punjani VS. PCIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 650 (Rajkot – Trib.)
Where assessee expired when assessment order was being framed and in absence of any specific statutory provision under Income-tax law which requires legal heirs to intimate Department about death of assessee, assessment order could not be held to be valid only for reason that legal heirs of deceased assessee had not informed about death of assessee, and thus, said assessment order could not be revised by taking recourse to 263 proceedings.
- Apeejay Surrendra Management Services (P.) Ltd. VS. DCIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 609 (Kolkata – Trib.)
Where assessee received loan from a company and said company and assessee had common shareholder who was in a position to control affairs of both lender company and receiver concern, deeming provisions of section 2(22)(e) would be attracted in hands of common shareholder and not assessee-concern.
- Forum Sales (P.) Ltd. vs. PCIT, (Central)-1; [2024] 160 taxmann.com 93 (Delhi)
Where AO made additions to income of assessee on account of unaccounted profit, disallowance of expenses and inflated purchases, since AO was provided with requisite bills, vouchers and addresses of transacting parties, however he did not make any effort to confirm veracity of alleged bogus or inflated bills, in view of said facts AO could not make addition on account of bogus or inflated expenses on estimate basis without rejecting books of account, said deleting additions were to be deleted.
- SAIC Motor Overseas Intelligent Mobility Technology Co. Ltd. vs. ACIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 779 (Delhi – Trib.)
Where assessee, a company incorporated in China, supplied software to an Indian company for granting of licence to incorporate software into head which is supplied from outside India and get fitted into cars and claimed it as non-taxable under India-China DTAA, since assessee had only supplied a standard/off the shelf software to Indian company and had not transferred copyright/right to use copyright of software, impugned receipts would not fall within scope of Article 12(3) of India-China DTAA to be taxed as royalty income, yes [Para 11.5 and 12][In favour of assessee].
- Kamal Enterprises and New Life Hospital VS. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-9(1) [2024] 160 taxmann.com 39 (Hyderabad – Trib.)
Within six months from end of month in which Appellate Tribunal passed orders, Assessing Officer became functus officio and he had no jurisdiction to pass second penalty order beyond period prescribed under section 275(1), therefore, Assessing Officer having passed second penalty order beyond period prescribed under section 275(1), said order was to be set aside.