Here’s a Direct Tax Weekly Flashback from 19 to 25 January 2025.
Table of Contents
Delhi High Court
Rates Charged By SEB For Supply Of Power Is An Appropriate External CUP For Determining Market Value Of Electricity: Delhi High Court
Case Title: PCIT Versus DCM Shriram Ltd.
The Delhi High Court has held that the rates charged by the State Electricity Board (SEB) for supply of power to the Assessee was an appropriate external CUP for determining the market value of electricity as supplied by the Assessee’s eligible unit to a non-eligible unit.
Bombay High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Constitutional Validity Of Explanations 1 and 4 Of Section 17(2) Of Income Tax Act By Banks Officers
Case Title: All India Central Bank ] Officers Federation Versus Union of India
The Bombay High Court has dismissed the plea challenging constitutional validity of Explanations 1 and 4 Of Section 17(2) Of Income Tax Act by Associations Of Officers Of Nationalised Banks.
Section 87A Rebate PIL Disposed Of By Bombay High Court: Issue Of Adjudication Of Eligibility Of Rebate Left To Dept.
Case Title: The Chamber of Tax Consultants Versus Director General of Income
Tax (systems)
The Bombay High Court has disposed of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) pertaining to the eligibility of rebate under Section 87A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The bench of Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain on admissibility of rebate under section 87A has observed that the issue of adjudication of eligibility of a claim under Section 87A is left to the authorities under the Income Tax Act while processing the returns filed by the assessees.
Bombay High Court Quashes Order Made By Officer Who Had Never Heard Petitioner, Directs CBDT To Reconsider
Case Title: Bharat Education Society Versus AO
The Bombay High Court while directing the matter back to the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) quashed the order made by an officer who had never heard the Petitioner.
The bench of Justice M.S.Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain has quashed the order on the grounds that the order was made by an officer who had never heard the Petitioner. There was no material on record to show that the Member of CBDT had made the order. The material only indicates that the order was approved by such Member.
Objections Raised By Assessee Not Rebutted By AO In Order: Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Notice
Case Title: Shrenik Kumar N. Baldota Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income
The Bombay High Court has quashed the reassessment notice on the grounds that the objections raised by assessee not rebutted by the Assessing Officer (AO) in the order.
Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging CBDT Notification Restricting Section 80IB (10) Benefit Only To Housing Projects Approved After 1 April 2004 And Before 31 March 2008
Case Title: Kiran Harsukhlal Hemani Versus UOI
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition challenging CBDT notification restricting section 80IB (10) benefit only to housing projects approved on or after 1 April 2004 and before 31 march 2008.
ITAT
ITAT Allows Section 10(38) Exemption On Sale Of Share, Quashes Reassessment
Case Title: Sujit Madan Versus DCIT
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) while quashing the reassessment, allowed the exemption under Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act on sale of shares.
The bench of Saktijit Dey (Vice President) and M. Balaganesh (Accountant Member) has observed that in assessee’s brother’s case, Shri Rajiv Madan, in respect of identical facts of sale of shares of Yamini Investment Company Limited, the income tax department had accepted the claim of short term capital gains disclosed by him to be genuine in the reopened assessment proceedings under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
